| Fitzpatrick v Fitzpatrick |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06829 [43 AD3d 991] |
| September 18, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Suzanne Fitzpatrick, Respondent-Appellant, v JohnFitzpatrick, Appellant-Respondent. |
—[*1] McCormack & Phillips, Nyack, N.Y. (Ronald G. McCormack of counsel), forrespondent-appellant.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited byhis notice of appeal and brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court,Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated January 27, 2006, which, inter alia, upon a decision ofthe same court dated June 7, 2004, made after a nonjury trial, awarded the plaintiff wife spousalmaintenance in the sum of $3,000 per month until she reaches the age of 65, and awardedownership of the marital residence solely to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff cross-appeals, aslimited by her brief, from stated portions of the same judgment which, inter alia, awarded herspousal maintenance in the sum of only $3,000 per month and child support in the sum of only$1,500 per month as of June 1, 2004, awarded the defendant certain stock options and shares ofstock issued by his employer, and directed the defendant to pay her an attorney's fee in the sum ofonly $21,000.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, withoutcosts or disbursements.
The amount and duration of spousal maintenance is a matter committed to the sounddiscretion of the trial court and each case must be considered based on the unique circumstancesit presents (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]; Hathaway v Hathaway, 16 AD3d458, 460 [2005]; Palumbo vPalumbo, 10 AD3d 680, 681 [2004]). The trial court is required to take into account theparties' pre-separation standard of living (see Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 50-52[1995]). The court must also consider the reasonable needs of the recipient spouse, and thepre-separation standard of living in [*2]the context of the otherfactors, and then, in its discretion, fashion a fair and equitable maintenance award (seeDomestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a] [1]-[11]; Hartog v Hartog, supra;Palumbo v Palumbo, supra). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion inmaking the award of maintenance at issue in this case.
The Supreme Court also properly awarded ownership of the marital residence, which hadbelonged to the plaintiff's parents who transferred it to the plaintiff, solely to the plaintiff. Thetransfer of title to the parties jointly, shortly before the commencement of this action, waseffected to secure a marital loan and did not reflect any intent on the plaintiff's part to make thedefendant a co-owner of the premises (see Maher v Maher, 144 AD2d 343, 344 [1988]).
The Supreme Court's award to the plaintiff of an attorney's fee in the sum of $21,000 was aproper exercise of the court's discretion, based in part on the disparity in the parties' incomes (see Sevdinoglou v Sevdinoglou, 40AD3d 959 [2007].
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Mastro, Lifson and Carni,JJ., concur.