Neumark v. Neumark
| Decision Date | 25 January 1993 |
| Citation | 189 A.D.2d 863,593 N.Y.S.2d 59 |
| Parties | Frances P. NEUMARK, Respondent-Appellant, v. Matthias NEUMARK, Appellant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Francis L. Filipowski, White Plains, for appellant-respondent.
Samuel R. Sharp, White Plains, for respondent-appellant.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and BRACKEN, SULLIVAN and O'BRIEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by order and judgment dated October 30, 1984, the defendant former husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiFede, J.H.O.), dated July 12, 1990, as amended August 14, 1990, which, inter alia, (1) directed him to convey his interest in the marital residence to the plaintiff, (2) directed him to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $101,535.91 in accrued arrears, (3) directed him to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $61,369.93 in pension benefits, and (4) reduced the plaintiff's maintenance to $800 a month plus $200 a month for arrears which have accrued since September 30, 1989, and the plaintiff wife cross-appeals from stated portions of the order and judgment, which, inter alia, (1) directed the Westchester County Commissioner of Public Safety to execute a deed conveying the plaintiff's interest in the parties' rental property to the defendant, and (2) appointed the defendant the agent of the plaintiff for the sale of the parties' unimproved property in New Hampshire.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is modified, on the law, by (1) deleting the provision thereof which awarded the plaintiff $61,369.93 in pension benefits, (2) deleting the provision thereof reducing the plaintiff's maintenance to $800 a month effective January 1, 1988, plus $200 for arrears which have accrued since September 30, 1989, and substituting therefor a provision reducing the plaintiff's maintenance to $500 a month effective March 1, 1988, plus $200 for arrears which have accrued since September 30, 1989, and (3) deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff $101,535.91 in accrued arrears and substituting therefor a provision awarding the plaintiff $99,255.91 in accrued arrears; as so modified, the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.
The parties were divorced in 1984 after a long marriage of approximately 25 years. At the time of their divorce, the defendant was 57 years old and employed as an executive by the Supermarkets General Corporation. He was earning more than $100,000 a year and he had pension and profit-sharing plans with his employer. The plaintiff was 62 years old. She had worked as a psychiatric social worker, from 1974 until January 1982. She subsequently lost her certification as a social worker which rendered her unemployable in that field.
The plaintiff was awarded maintenance of $2,500 a month until her death or remarriage. The plaintiff was also awarded a 50% interest in the defendant's vested pension benefits to the extent that such benefits had accrued during the marriage. In addition, the defendant was required to pay the mortgage and taxes on the marital residence (currently $942 a month), which was awarded to the plaintiff, and he was required to maintain a life insurance policy for her benefit (currently $90 a month).
The defendant was forced to retire due to a leveraged buy-out of Supermarkets General Corporation, and, upon the advice of counsel, he stopped making maintenance payments to the plaintiff on January 1, 1988. The following month, he moved to modify his maintenance obligation. The plaintiff cross-moved, inter alia, to compel the defendant to pay her 50% of his retirement benefits.
There are two recognized methods for the distribution of pension benefits, whether or not those benefits are vested. The court can either direct that the nonemployee spouse be given a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Moore v. New York City Transit Authority
-
Weiss v. Weiss
...has in fact lost his job, his remedy is to move for a downward modification of his maintenance obligation (e.g., Neumark v. Neumark, 189 A.D.2d 863, 593 N.Y.S.2d 59). We have examined the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without ...
-
Haviland v. Haviland
...a claimed substantial change in circumstances (see, Kavanagh v. Kavanagh, 119 A.D.2d 984, 500 N.Y.S.2d 880; see also, Neumark v. Neumark, 189 A.D.2d 863, 593 N.Y.S.2d 59, lv. dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 843, 606 N.Y.S.2d 593, 627 N.E.2d 515). A review of the record supports the conclusion that peti......
-
McSparron v. McSparron
...particularly in view of the increase in plaintiff's income from $26,000 to $80,000 during the intervening period (see, Neumark v. Neumark, 189 A.D.2d 863, 593 N.Y.S.2d 59, lv. dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 843, 606 N.Y.S.2d 593, 627 N.E.2d 515; Schnoor v. Schnoor, 189 A.D.2d 809, 592 N.Y.S.2d 460). A......