Nadasi v. Nadel-Nadasi
Decision Date | 20 September 2017 |
Parties | David NADASI, respondent-appellant, v. Rose Anne NADEL–NADASI, appellant-respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
153 A.D.3d 1346
60 N.Y.S.3d 488
David NADASI, respondent-appellant,
v.
Rose Anne NADEL–NADASI, appellant-respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Sept. 20, 2017.
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, White Plains, NY (Robert A. Spolzino, former of counsel on the brief), for appellant-respondent.
The McPherson Firm, P.C., New York, NY (Laurie J. McPherson of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, BETSY BARROS, and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
Appeal and cross appeal from stated portions of a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Charles D. Wood, J.), dated September 16, 2014. The judgment, upon a decision of that court entered March 13, 2014, made after a nonjury trial, and upon an order of that court entered June 18, 2014, inter alia, awarded the defendant a credit in the sum of $135,450 related to the plaintiff's interest in S & M Brokerage Co., Inc., representing 15% of the value of the plaintiff's interest in the business, failed to award the defendant any credit related to a business apartment, credited the defendant
with $127,162.50 for allegedly missing funds, equitably distributed life insurance policies and a vehicle, awarded the defendant maintenance in the sum of $12,000 per month for two years after the defendant vacates the marital home or June 1, 2014, whichever is later, $11,000 per month for the following two years, and $10,000 per month for the following two years, with such maintenance obligation terminating upon the defendant's remarriage or the death of either party, directed the plaintiff to pay 100% of the children's add-on expenses and 70% of the defendant's attorney and expert fees, and failed to hold the plaintiff in contempt.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, (1) by deleting the provision thereof awarding the defendant a credit in the sum of $135,450 related to the plaintiff's interest in S & M Brokerage Co., Inc., representing 15% of the value of the plaintiff's interest in the business, and substituting therefor a provision awarding the defendant a credit in the sum of $225,750 related to the plaintiff's interest in S & M Brokerage Co., Inc., representing 25% of the value of the plaintiff's interest in the business, (2) by adding a provision thereto awarding the defendant a credit in the sum of $90,000 related to the business apartment, and (3) by deleting the provision thereof awarding the defendant maintenance in the sum of $12,000 per month for two years after the defendant vacates the marital home or June 1, 2014, whichever is later, $11,000 per month for the following two years, and $10,000 per month for the following two years, with such maintenance obligation terminating upon the defendant's remarriage or the death of either party, and substituting therefor a provision awarding the defendant maintenance in the sum of $12,000 per month for two years after the defendant vacates the marital home or June 1, 2014, whichever is later, $11,000 per month for the following two years, $10,000 per month for the following two years, $9,000 per month for the following two years, $8,000 per month for the following two years, and $7,000 per month for the following two years, with such maintenance obligation terminating upon the defendant's remarriage or the death of either party; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with costs to the defendant.
The parties were married on November 11, 1989, and there are three children of the marriage. The plaintiff is a 50% partner in a commodities brokerage firm, earning approximately $1.5 million per year. The defendant stopped working in 1996 to be a homemaker and primary caretaker of the parties' children. The parties separated in May 2010. In July 2011, the plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief. The matter went to trial on the issues of equitable distribution, child support, and maintenance. In a decision dated March 13, 2014, the Supreme Court, among other things, credited the defendant with 15% of the plaintiff's business interest as valued by a neutral appraiser, totaling the sum of $135,450, and otherwise equally divided the marital estate, with certain credits to each party. The court determined that the plaintiff's interest in a business apartment was his separate property. It awarded the defendant six years of maintenance, decreasing from $12,000 monthly to $10,000 monthly over that period, and directed the plaintiff to pay 100% of the children's add-on expenses other than medical claims denied due to their untimely submission by the defendant. In an order entered June 18, 2014, the court directed the plaintiff to pay 70% of the defendant's counsel and expert fees. Thereafter, a judgment of divorce dated September 16, 2014, was entered,
implementing the court's findings. The parties appeal and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pia M. v. Mitchell M.
...and in caring for the parties’ children]; M.M. v. D.M. , 159 A.D.3d 562, 73 N.Y.S.3d 156 [1st Dept. 2018] ; Nadasi v. Nadel-Nadasi , 153 A.D.3d 1346, 60 N.Y.S.3d 488 [2d Dept. 2017] [finding 25% of the husband's interest in a commodities brokerage firm equitable, given the wife's contributi......
-
Glyka Trans, LLC v. City of N.Y., 2015–11661
...Notice," which is dehors the record and so not properly before the Court on this appeal (see CPLR 5526 ; Nadasi v. Nadel–Nadasi, 153 A.D.3d 1346, 1351, 60 N.Y.S.3d 488 ; Castello v. Castello, 144 A.D.3d 723, 727, 41 N.Y.S.3d 250 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in determining that th......
-
Achuthan v. Achuthan
...163 A.D.3d 839, 840, 82 N.Y.S.3d 557, quoting Repetti v. Repetti, 147 A.D.3d 1094, 1096, 47 N.Y.S.3d 447 ; see Nadasi v. Nadel–Nadasi, 153 A.D.3d 1346, 1350, 60 N.Y.S.3d 488 ). "Where, as here, an action was commenced prior to the amendments to the Domestic Relations Law effective January 2......
-
Ferrante v. Ferrante
...become self-supporting, and the reduced or lost lifetime earning capacity of the party seeking maintenance’ " ( Nadasi v. Nadel–Nadasi , 153 A.D.3d 1346, 1350, quoting Repetti v. Repetti , 147 A.D.3d 1094, 1096–1097, 47 N.Y.S.3d 447 ). "The overriding purpose of a maintenance award is to gi......