Pulitzer v. Pulitzer

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: ASCH
• Citation: Pulitzer v. Pulitzer, 523 N.Y.S.2d 508, 134 A.D.2d 84 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
• Decision Date: 12 January 1988
• Parties: Bert PULITZER, Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent, v. Corinne PULITZER, Defendant-Respondent-Appellant.

Page 508

523 N.Y.S.2d 508

134 A.D.2d 84

Bert PULITZER, Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent, v. Corinne PULITZER, Defendant-Respondent-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

Jan. 12, 1988.

Albert Kostrinsky, Great Neck, for plaintiff-appellant-respondent.

Michael Konopka, New York City, for defendant-respondent-appellant.

Before MURPHY, P.J., and SANDLER, CARRO, ASCH and KASSAL, JJ.

ASCH, Justice.

The parties were married in December 1974 and have one child, Justin, born in September 1978, now 9 years old. The plaintiff-husband is now 43 and defendant-wife 39.

At the time of their marriage, defendant was a New York City high school teacher and plaintiff headed the Bert Pulitzer Division of Consolidated Goods, Inc., a design and manufacturing company which he had previously owned but had sold. In February 1975, plaintiff repurchased the business and, at that time, the wife left her teaching job and worked for the company. In short order, she became head of the ladies' division of the company. The parties traveled extensively and dined out lavishly, but on company business and at company expense. Although living in a two-bedroom, rent-stabilized apartment, that apartment was on Park Avenue, and they had a housekeeper.

After business reversals, Rapid American Botany Shirt Company purchased the company and employed both parties in their former positions. The wife left that firm and began to work for Lynwood Classics in August 1979 at a salary of $55,000 per year. The husband, in November of 1980, followed suit. He left Rapid American and ultimately received $50,000 and a BMW automobile in settlement of claims against his former employer. He thereupon set up his present corporation XMI Corp., a design consulting business. Although the wife earned $62,000 in 1981, she stopped her employment in April 1982 and had not returned to work through the time of trial. The husband's salary in 1984 from his corporation was $155,000 per year, with the court recognizing an additional $50,000 in lifestyle benefits paid by the corporation (which the court found covered the husband's obligations to his first wife and the children from his first marriage).

During the course of the marriage, the parties had purchased, in their joint names, a summer home in Sag Harbor for $110,000, obtaining a purchase money mortgage of $75,000 from the builder and borrowing $30,000 from the wife's parents. The parties had also purchased a tax shelter, known as El Paso, in joint names.

Approximately nine months after the commencement of this action, in the winter of 1983, an amended plan for cooperative conversion of the parties' rental apartment in Manhattan was filed. The apartment became available for $74,910. The wife did not advise the husband of such opportunity but executed the subscription agreement on her own and assigned the rights to her parents on March 15, 1983. Her parents purchased the shares allocated to the apartment with their own funds. The husband commenced a separate action to obtain an interest in the apartment against the wife, her parents and the cooperative corporation.

After an 11-day trial in March 1985, Trial Term issued a decision in August 1985, followed by two supplemental decisions necessitated by the parties' inability to resolve minor differences, and thereafter by a comprehensive May 1986 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Besides granting the wife a divorce on grounds of the husband's cruel and inhuman treatment and awarding the wife custody of the child, with liberal visitation to the husband, it found the husband's earning power to be three times greater than the wife's. Accordingly, the court stated its intent to use that ratio in apportioning responsibilities where appropriate.

It found that the wife, not having worked for three years, was not at peak efficiency or experience to undertake high level employment, and thus entitled to rehabilitative maintenance of $27,400 per year for three years, payable at $527 per week. The court also found that the child's expenses, exclusive of private school tuition, summer camp expenses and unreimbursed medical and dental expenses, were $19,000, and that the husband should pay child support of $15,600 per year, payable in weekly installments of $300 per week, plus the entire cost of private school tuition, summer camp expenses and unreimbursed medical and dental expenses.

The court evaluated the husband's business on a "value to owner" basis and calculated this value by multiplying the monthly billings of $27,000 by 12 and then subtracting the husband's base salary of $150,000 (erroneously reaching a result of $175,000). The court found the wife to be entitled to 25% of such value. The husband's settlement with Rapid American for the $50,000 payment and a BMW (which was directed to be sold) was to be divided equally by the parties. The Sag Harbor summer home, found to be worth $185,000 less loans attributable to it of $100,000, was to be sold and the proceeds to be subject to a lien for other amounts which one party might owe the other. The El Paso tax shelter was found to be a marital asset, but of constantly changing value due to its diminishing tax benefits over time, and it was therefore ignored by the court. The cooperative apartment was found to be a marital asset and its proper value fixed as of the time of its dissipation from the marital estate in March 1983, when the wife assigned the right to purchase it to her parents. This was found to be $366,500, from which the $74,690 paid by the wife's parents was deducted, with the husband being credited for one-half the balance, or $146,005. Two Marinsky bronze sculptures were found not to be the property of either party, but rather that of the Bert Pulitzer Company.

The award of $27,400 per year rehabilitative maintenance was not excessive. It is to continue for only three years, allowing the wife time to restore her earning power to prior levels. The $300 per week child support, exclusive of private school tuition, summer camp and unreimbursed medical and dental expenses, even taking into account that her obligation is only three-quarters of such...