Treffiletti v. Treffiletti

• Decision Date: 02 July 1998
• Citation: 675 N.Y.S.2d 192,252 A.D.2d 635
• Parties: , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 6600 Elizabeth TREFFILETTI, Appellant-Respondent, v. Michael TREFFILETTI, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 192

675 N.Y.S.2d 192

252 A.D.2d 635, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 6600

Elizabeth TREFFILETTI, Appellant-Respondent, v. Michael TREFFILETTI, Respondent-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

July 2, 1998.

Ryan, Orlando & Smallacombe (Ronald B. Orlando, of counsel), Albany, for appellant-respondent.

Rice & Justice (Bradley F. Rice, of counsel), Albany, for respondent-appellant.

Before MIKOLL, J.P., and CREW, YESAWICH, PETERS and CARPINELLO, JJ.

YESAWICH, Justice.

Cross appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Seibert Jr., J.) ordering, inter alia, equitable distribution of the parties' marital property, entered April 10, 1997 in Saratoga County, upon a decision of the court.

The parties to this divorce action were married in 1972. With the birth of their first child in 1974, plaintiff ceased working outside the home and, with defendant's consent, devoted her efforts to child rearing and household duties. In 1984 plaintiff obtained part-time work as a bookkeeper, and in 1990 she enrolled in college, earning a two-year degree in 1994. At the time of the trial in 1995, plaintiff was employed at a local library, earning $19,428 annually. Defendant initially worked in a family business, but in 1979 embarked upon what eventually became a successful career as a stockbroker, which he has continued to pursue. His annual earnings in the six years preceding the trial averaged approximately $174,000.

At the start of the trial, defendant withdrew his opposition to plaintiff's first cause of action and stipulated that she was entitled to a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. A bench trial was held to resolve the ancillary financial issues, after which Supreme Court rendered a comprehensive decision dividing the marital property and awarding plaintiff, inter alia, maintenance of $1,500 per month for eight years (retroactive to September 1992) and child support of $1,250 for the parties' two unemancipated sons (who were then 17 and 19 years of age). The parties have each appealed from the resulting judgment.

There is merit to plaintiff's argument that the duration of the maintenance award should not have been limited to eight years. Supreme Court's findings--that plaintiff subordinated her educational and occupational development, throughout the marriage, to raise the parties' children and assist defendant in advancing his career, and that, despite having essentially reached the limit of her earning capability, she is nevertheless unable to meet her monthly expenses or to maintain a standard of living approaching that enjoyed by the family before defendant's departure--are amply supported in the record. No rationale is advanced, however, for ending her maintenance payments on September 1, 2000 (see, White v. White, 204 A.D.2d 825, 828, 611 N.Y.S.2d 951, lv. dismissed 84 N.Y.2d 977, 622 N.Y.S.2d 916, 647 N.E.2d 122; Zelnik v. Zelnik, 169 A.D.2d 317, 333-334, 573 N.Y.S.2d 261). There is no evidence that her financial position will improve to any significant degree by that point in time, let alone that she will be any more self-supporting then, at age 53, than she is currently (see, Zelnik v. Zelnik, supra, at 333, 573 N.Y.S.2d 261; Phillips v. Phillips, 182 A.D.2d 746, 747, 582 N.Y.S.2d 743); indeed, Supreme Court explicitly found that plaintiff will be unable to meet her expenses without assistance from defendant "until such time as [she] is able to retire". Nor does defendant assert that he will be caused to suffer any hardship if the payments are continued, as plaintiff requests, until then. Taking these factors into account, as well as the parties' respective financial circumstances, we conclude that defendant should be directed to make spousal maintenance payments in the amount of $1,500 per month until plaintiff becomes eligible for Social Security retirement benefits, unless the obligation is earlier terminated by plaintiff's cohabitation with another adult in a spousal-type relationship, or as otherwise provided by law (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][6][c]; see also, De Marco v. De Marco, 235 A.D.2d 1014, 1015, 652 N.Y.S.2d 898; Fleitz v. Fleitz, 223 A.D.2d 946, 948, 636 N.Y.S.2d 911, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 802, 644 N.Y.S.2d 688, 667 N.E.2d 338).

Plaintiff's argument that defendant's gambling activities resulted in his dissipating some $110,000 in marital assets is...