Post v. Post

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Citation: Post v. Post, 68 A.D.3d 741, 2009 NY Slip Op 9014, 890 N.Y.S.2d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
• Decision Date: 01 December 2009
• Docket Number: 2008-05852
• Parties: MONICA POST, Respondent, v. DANIEL POST, Appellant.

68 A.D.3d 741

2009 NY Slip Op 9014

890 N.Y.S.2d 581

MONICA POST, Respondent, v. DANIEL POST, Appellant.

2008-05852

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.

Decided December 1, 2009.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Woods, J.), dated March 26, 2008, as awarded the plaintiff the sum of $175,000, representing one half of the value of the marital residence after awarding him a separate property credit in the sum of $140,000, awarded the plaintiff the sum of $43,000 as her share of his business, awarded the plaintiff 50% of the money in various bank accounts after awarding her a separate property credit in the sum of $60,000,

determined that the plaintiff's residence was separate property, and awarded her the furnishings in her possession.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and the facts, (1) by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff the sum of $175,000, representing one half of the value of the marital residence after awarding the defendant a separate property credit in the sum of $140,000, and substituting therefor a provisions awarding her the sum of $141,000, representing one half of the value of the marital residence after awarding the defendant a separate property credit in the sum of $208,000, (2) by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff the sum of $43,000 as her share of the defendant's business, and (3) by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff the furnishings in her possession; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for the entry of an amended judgment awarding the defendant 50% of the furnishings following determination of the items to which he is entitled.

The marital residence was purchased by the defendant in 1985. In 2001, after the parties were married, the marital residence was transferred from the defendant to himself and the plaintiff, as tenants by the entirety. Later, the property was transferred into the plaintiff's name alone.

In Coffey v Coffey (119 AD2d 620, 622 [1986]), this Court held that a husband's conveyance of his real property to himself and his wife, as tenants by the entirety, "evidenced an intention that the wife have an ownership interest in [the] assets" (see also Monks v Monks, 134 AD2d 334 [1987]). We, therefore, concluded that the assets in issue, which had been placed in the parties' joint names, were properly characterized as marital property, within the meaning of Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (1) (c). This Court further recognized, however, that "there is no requirement that the distribution of each item of marital property be on an equal or 50-50 basis" (Arvantides v Arvantides, 64 NY2d 1033, 1034 [1985]; see Parsons v Parsons, 101 AD2d 1017 [198...