Parker v. Parker

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New York)
Citation196 Misc.2d 672,766 N.Y.S.2d 315
Decision Date03 September 2003
PartiesKENNETH R. PARKER, Plaintiff,<BR>v.<BR>CONCELIA PARKER, Also Known as CONNIE PARKER, Individually and as Trustee of the Living Trust of CONCELIA PARKER, Defendant.

196 Misc.2d 672
766 N.Y.S.2d 315

KENNETH R. PARKER, Plaintiff,
v.
CONCELIA PARKER, Also Known as CONNIE PARKER, Individually and as Trustee of the Living Trust of CONCELIA PARKER, Defendant.

September 3, 2003.


Dominic A. Barbara, Garden City, for plaintiff.

Brancato & Marchese, P.C., Manhasset, for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

ANTHONY J. FALANGA, J.

This is a motion by the husband for an order restraining the wife and her agents, during the pendency of the action, from

[196 Misc.2d 673]

making any disposition of separate and/or marital assets, including $8,590,077 in lottery winnings; and for a further order requiring the defendant to place the sum of $3,500,000 in the husband's name or in escrow and directing them to provide an accounting of the disbursements of said lottery winnings.

The following facts are not in dispute: The parties were married on June 20, 1987. At the time of the marriage, the husband was 61 and the wife was 58 years old. Both parties had been widowed. The husband is presently 77 and the wife is 74 years old. The husband has five adult children from a prior marriage. The wife has three adult children from a prior marriage.

In June 1987, prior to their marriage, the parties executed and acknowledged a written agreement waiving their respective rights of election in the other's estate. Said agreement also provides, to wit: "In the event of a divorce, separation of the parties or annulment of the marriage no claims shall be made by either party against the other's title and interest in his or her separate and sole property * * * Sole and separate property shall include any real or personal property individually owned by either party whether the same be acquired prior to or subsequent to the execution of this agreement and marriage of the parties. Marital property shall include only such real or personal property held jointly or by the entirety."

During the marriage, the parties lived modestly in a rental apartment. The husband had income of approximately $2,100 to $2,400 a month from Social Security and a pension. The wife received $400 a month Social Security and a pension, in an undisclosed monthly amount. The parties maintained a joint checking account. The wife received a personal injury settlement of $18,000 and did not deposit said funds into the joint account.

The parties vacationed in Las Vegas and Atlantic City on various occasions. They both gambled during such trips. The wife regularly played the New York State lottery using the same sets of numbers comprised of family birth dates and ages.

On February 12, 2003, a lottery ticket purchased by the wife was the only winning ticket of a $25,000,000 lottery prize. On March 6, 2003, the parties and one of the wife's children took a limousine to Madison Square Garden to collect a check for $8,590,077. The check was made payable to the wife. There are additional taxes due on said winnings of $1,300,000. On March 7, 2003, the parties met with an accountant. On March 8, 2003, they met with an agent from Merrill Lynch. On March 19, 2003, the parties signed a contract to purchase a condominium

[196 Misc.2d 674]

in Melville for $490,000. On April 8, 2003, the wife placed the lottery winnings into the Concelia Parker Living Trust. As of April 25, 2003, said trust had $8,000,950.69 on deposit in a Merrill Lynch account. The trust document provides that upon the wife's death, the husband receives any residence in which he resides at the time of her death. In addition, he receives the income from $500,000 segregated into a marital trust. The balance of the trust passes to the wife's children. Both parties attended the closing of the Melville condominium on April 25, 2003. Title to the condominium was placed in the name of the Concelia Parker Living Trust. The husband commenced the instant action for divorce or separation on May 22, 2003. Prior to the commencement of the action the wife made certain gifts of the lottery winnings to her children. No details have been provided with regard to said gifts. The husband does not have access to the Melville condominium.

The husband contends that during the marriage he paid all the household bills; that he never asked the wife for "a dime"; that she was free to spend her retirement funds...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Dinner Club Corp. v. Hamlet On Olde Oyster Bay Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 6165.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • September 15, 2005
    ...under the express wording of CPLR 6301 (Credit Agricole, 94 NY2d at 548). However, that is not the instant case (cf. Parker v. Parker, 196 Misc 2d 672, 676 [2003] [subject matter of action was specific fund, i.e., lottery winnings]). Thus, the court should have denied plaintiff's motion for......
  • AOM 1703 Lexington Ave. LLC v. Malik, 2006 NY Slip Op 51788(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 8/16/2006), 115718/05.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • August 16, 2006
    ...of this action and, as such, the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if they are dissipated by the defendant. See Parker v. Parker, 196 Misc 2d 672, 676 (Sup Ct Nassau Co Finally, a balance of the equities weighs in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant has notably failed to indicate t......
2 cases
  • Dinner Club Corp. v. Hamlet On Olde Oyster Bay Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 6165.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • September 15, 2005
    ...under the express wording of CPLR 6301 (Credit Agricole, 94 NY2d at 548). However, that is not the instant case (cf. Parker v. Parker, 196 Misc 2d 672, 676 [2003] [subject matter of action was specific fund, i.e., lottery winnings]). Thus, the court should have denied plaintiff's motion for......
  • AOM 1703 Lexington Ave. LLC v. Malik, 2006 NY Slip Op 51788(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 8/16/2006), 115718/05.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • August 16, 2006
    ...of this action and, as such, the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if they are dissipated by the defendant. See Parker v. Parker, 196 Misc 2d 672, 676 (Sup Ct Nassau Co Finally, a balance of the equities weighs in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant has notably failed to indicate t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT