Verdrager v. Verdrager
Decision Date | 12 August 1996 |
Citation | 646 N.Y.S.2d 185,230 A.D.2d 786 |
Parties | Jane A. VERDRAGER, Appellant, v. Bruce A. VERDRAGER, Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Caroline Levy, Northport, for appellant.
Martin S. Dorfman, Woodbury, for respondent.
Before ROSENBLATT, J.P., and RITTER, COPERTINO and JOY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff-wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a (1) judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered September 9, 1994, as (a) purportedly awarded her maintenance only until the age of 63, (b) fixed the interest rate on her distributive award at the prime rate, (c) awarded the defendant-husband a $23,959.09 credit for overpayments of support and maintenance, and (d) directed the defendant-husband to pay the plaintiff-wife's counsel fees in the purported sum of only $35,000, and (2) an order of the same court, dated May 5, 1995, as denied the branch of her motion which was to resettle the judgment.
ORDERED that the wife is awarded one bill of costs.
The appeal from the order dated May 5, 1995, must be dismissed as no appeal lies from an order denying resettlement of the decretal paragraphs of a judgment (see, Furey v. Furey, 230 A.D.2d 708, 646 N.Y.S.2d 358; Fischer v. Luczak, 198 A.D.2d 474, 605 N.Y.S.2d 928; Zagami v. Zagami, 173 A.D.2d 698, 571 N.Y.S.2d 1011).
The wife appeals, inter alia, from so much of the judgment as purportedly awarded her maintenance only until age 63 and limited her award of counsel fees to $35,000. Although the court's memorandum decision dated December 20, 1993, explicitly stated that the wife's maintenance would terminate at age 63 and that she is entitled to counsel fees of $35,000, the judgment has no provision terminating maintenance at age 63 and awarded the wife only $27,500 in counsel fees. Since these mistakes appear to be merely scrivener's errors we have modified the judgment accordingly (see, Matter of Luposello, 225 A.D.2d 551, 639 N.Y.S.2d 83; see also, CPLR 5019[a]; 2 Carmody-Wait 2d, N.Y.Prac. §§ 8:113, 8:114).
The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding the wife maintenance until the age of 63 (a period of 17 years) when she will become eligible for, inter alia, social security benefits (see, Hartog v. Hartog, 85 N.Y.2d 36, 623 N.Y.S.2d 537, 647 N.E.2d 749; Nadel v. Nadel, 220 A.D.2d 565, 632 N.Y.S.2d 631; Neumark v. Neumark, 120 A.D.2d 502, 501 N.Y.S.2d 704). Further, we discern no basis in the record for disturbing the court's award of counsel fees in the amount of $35,000 (see generally, Domestic Relations Law § 237[a]; DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879, 524 N.Y.S.2d 176, 518 N.E.2d 1168).
However, the court erred in ordering interest on the wife's distributive award to accrue at the prime rate rather than at the statutory rate. Unless otherwise provided by statute, interest on a judgment is to accrue at the statutory rate (see, CPLR 5004; Gross v. Lichtman, 44 A.D.2d 554, 352 N.Y.S.2d 670). CPLR 5001(a) merely permits the discretionary award of interest on, inter alia, an equitable claim prior to the time of verdict, report, or decision (see, e.g., Schanback v. Schanback, 159 A.D.2d 498, 552 N.Y.S.2d 370).
In addition, the decision underlying the judgment directed the husband to obtain and maintain a life insurance policy naming the wife as the beneficiary to secure the payment of his obligations. However, this direction was omitted from the judgment. Where there is an inconsistency between a judgment and the decision upon which it is based, the decision controls (Green v. Morris, 156 A.D.2d 331, 548 N.Y.S.2d 899; Di Prospero v. Ford Motor Co., 105 A.D.2d 479, 480 N.Y.S.2d 784). Further, such an inconsistency may be corrected either by way of a motion for resettlement or on appeal (CPLR 2221, 5019[a]; Green v. Morris, supra; Young v. Casabonne Bros., 145 A.D.2d 244, 538 N.Y.S.2d 348). Accordingly, the judgment is modified to properly reflect the decision. However, the court's failure to direct the husband to pay for the reasonable college expenses of the parties' children and for the law school expenses of their daughter Kamee may not be similarly corrected. In the decision underlying the judgment, the court noted that the husband had agreed to pay for the reasonable college expenses of the parties' children and for the law...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sprole v. Sprole
...618 N.Y.S.2d 761, 643 N.E.2d 80 [1994] ; McKay v. Groesbeck, 117 A.D.3d 810, 811, 985 N.Y.S.2d 686 [2014] ; Verdrager v. Verdrager, 230 A.D.2d 786, 788, 646 N.Y.S.2d 185 [1996] ). "These provisions require a court to provide for retroactive payments of permanent maintenance and support only......
-
D'Iorio v. D'Iorio
...paid” (Domestic Relations Law § 236[B] 6[a]; see McKay v. Groesbeck, 117 A.D.3d 810, 811, 985 N.Y.S.2d 686; Verdrager v. Verdrager, 230 A.D.2d 786, 788–789, 646 N.Y.S.2d 185). Here, the plaintiff had been paying temporary maintenance and the defendant's credit card pursuant to the pendente ......
-
Kim v. Schiller
...there is an inconsistency between a judgment and the decision upon which it is based, the decision controls” (Verdrager v. Verdrager, 230 A.D.2d 786, 787, 646 N.Y.S.2d 185; see Berry v. Williams, 87 A.D.3d 958, 961, 929 N.Y.S.2d 281; Matter of Jimmy D., 63 A.D.3d 737, 738, 880 N.Y.S.2d 334,......
-
Ford v. Ford
...v. Sinnott, 194 A.D.3d at 878, 149 N.Y.S.3d 441 ; Markowitz v. Markowitz, 146 A.D.3d 872, 874, 45 N.Y.S.3d 203 ; Verdrager v. Verdrager, 230 A.D.2d 786, 646 N.Y.S.2d 185 ).3 Here, there is no indication that, in determining that the plaintiff was not entitled to an award of retroactive chil......