Nalbandian v. Nalbandian

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Before THOMPSON
• Citation: Nalbandian v. Nalbandian, 522 N.Y.S.2d 199, 135 A.D.2d 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
• Decision Date: 14 December 1987
• Parties: Patricia NALBANDIAN, Appellant-Respondent, v. Edward NALBANDIAN, Respondent-Appellant.

Page 199

522 N.Y.S.2d 199

135 A.D.2d 621

Patricia NALBANDIAN, Appellant-Respondent, v. Edward NALBANDIAN, Respondent-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Dec. 14, 1987.

Alter & Alter, P.C., New York City (Stephanie S. Alter, of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Schoeman, Marsh, Updike & Welt, New York City (Gordon H. Marsh, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and LAWRENCE, RUBIN and SPATT, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, (1) the plaintiff wife appeals, as limited by her notice of appeal and brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), entered August 20, 1986, which, inter alia, (2) awarded her maintenance only in the sum of $950 per month and provided that maintenance would be suspended upon retirement of the defendant husband, (3) directed that the defendant husband maintain the plaintiff wife as only a 50% beneficiary of a life insurance policy provided by his employer (25% if she remarries), (4) awarded the defendant husband a credit of $40,000 against the division of the marital assets, (5) found that the sum of $168,000 which was transferred by the defendant husband to his sisters was not marital property, and (6) did not award counsel fees to her, and, the defendant husband cross-appeals from so much of the same judgment as did not award him the entire appreciation in value of the $40,000 found to be separate property.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion, by deleting from line two of the third decretal paragraph thereof the words "fifty percent (50%)" and substituting therefor the words "one-hundred percent (100%)", and by deleting from lines six and seven of the third decretal paragraph thereof the words "twenty-five percent (25%)" and substituting therefor the words "one hundred percent (100%)"; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The trial court did not err in its distribution of the marital property. In this regard, we note that the court correctly held that the sum of $168,000 transferred by the defendant husband to his sisters was not marital property. The testimony at trial revealed that the defendant husband and his sisters were beneficiaries of certain funds from the estates of certain of their relatives which the defendant managed. At the time of commencement of...