Orenstein v. Orenstein

• Decision Date: 29 November 1966
• Citation: 275 N.Y.S.2d 33,26 A.D.2d 928
• Parties: Pauline ORENSTEIN, Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v. Irving ORENSTEIN, Defendant-Appellant-Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 33

275 N.Y.S.2d 33

26 A.D.2d 928

Pauline ORENSTEIN, Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v. Irving ORENSTEIN, Defendant-Appellant-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Nov. 29, 1966.

R. M. Cohn, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent-appellant.

I. Yavers, New York City, for defendant-appellant-respondent.

Before BREITEL, J.P., and McNALLY, STEVENS, STEUER and CAPOZZOLI, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment awarding plaintiff permanent alimony in the sum of $350 per week and counsel fees in the sum of $5,000, modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of reducing the alimony to $200 per week and counsel fees to $2,000, and, as so modified, affirmed without costs or disbursements.

Defendant challenges as excessive the award of alimony and counsel fees in this action for separation. The decision fails to state the essential facts. The single finding relative to the financial circumstances of the parties is conclusory. (see CPLR 4213; Power v. Falk, 15 A.D.2d 216, 222 N.Y.S.2d 261.) The record likewise fails to sustain the award of support and counsel fees. The parties were married December 12, 1961. Each had been married previously, the wife twice and the husband once. The separation occurred June, 1965. There is no issue. Defendant, prior to his marriage with the plaintiff, maintained a bachelor apartment for about 20 years. Plaintiff moved into defendant's furnished and rent controlled apartment. The apartment rent, originally $308 monthly, was increased in stages to $358. Following decontrol, the apartment rent was increased to $750. Thereupon defendant arranged for an apartment on a lower floor at $418 monthly. Defendant admits annual living expenses of about $20,000 which he particularizes as follows: Plaintiff received weekly for out-of-pocket expenses $30; hotel charges of $400 monthly for food, drugs, laundry and other items; $50 weekly restaurant expenses; annually, $1,000 for clothing, $435 life insurance premiums, $400 medical expenses and $800 automobile expenses. During the marriage the parties had a single extended vacation of 10 days in Miami, Florida, at the house of a friend of defendant. Defendant discontinued his brokerage business during 1962. His testimony is that his annual income in and after 1963 did not exceed $15,000. The standard of living during the latter years of the marriage would appear to have been dependent in part on defendant's capital. In the absence of special circumstances, not relied on here, a former matrimonial standard of living based on capital expenditures is not a proper basis for permanent alimony. (Winkler v. Winkler, 25 Misc.2d 938, 940, 207 N.Y.S.2d 940, 942, affd. 13 A.D.2d 924, 216 N.Y.S.2d 307, affd. 11 N.Y.2d 693, 225 N.Y.S.2d 763, 180 N.E.2d 915; Hearst v. Hearst, 3 A.D.2d 706, 159 N.Y.S.2d 753.) We reduced as excessive an award of temporary alimony in this case (24 A.D.2d 753, 263 N.Y.S.2d 879) from $175 per week, plus $350 rent per month, to the sum of $150 per week. We stated then that the amount awarded for temporary alimony was excessive and not supported by the record. Similarly, the instant award does not find support in the record. Plaintiff's uncorroborated generalities, entirely conclusory in nature, fail to meet the defendant's specific evidence despite ample opportunity afforded the plaintiff to rebut defendant's allegations and proof on the trial and on the application for temporary alimony. In addition, the award of alimony should be made in the light of defendant's need to maintain separate living quarters. (Pournaras v. Pournaras, 25 A.D.2d 635, 269 N.Y.S.2d 365.) The grounds for separation were not contested, the issues as to support were not complicated and the trial was brief. In the circumstances, the award of alimony and counsel fees beyond the sums herein provided was excessive. All concur except BREITEL, J.P., and STEVENS, J., who dissent in the following memorandum by BREITEL, J.P.:

BREITEL, Justice Presiding (dissenting):

I dissent and vote to affirm. Defendant husband did not contest plaintiff wife's right to a separation based on a series of brutal physical beatings, some in public places. Only the amount of support of this childless marriage of over three years is in issue. The wife testified that following the honeymoon in Mexico, the parties occupied an apartment at Central Park South in Manhattan at a rental of $360 per month, and that the husband had furnished it with $40,000 worth of antiques, always paying cash for his purchases. While she was allowed to have many charge accounts at leading shops, her husband always urged her to use cash. He gave her $100 to $200 per week in cash for spending; later in her testimony she limited the pocket allowance to $100 per week. She was provided with fur coats and various items of expensive jewelry during the marriage. All other household expenses were paid by the husband on a monthly basis. He, a heavy drinker, told her that the liquor bill was $600 per...