| Sirgant v Sirgant |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06860 [43 AD3d 1034] |
| September 18, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Jeanne Sirgant, Respondent, v John J. Sirgant,Appellant. |
—[*1] Martin R. Goldberg, Middletown, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the husband appeals, as limited by his brief,from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Green, J.H.O.), datedJanuary 21, 2005, which, after a hearing, inter alia, awarded the wife nondurational maintenancein the sum of $825 per month and directed him to pay child support to the wife in the sum of$1,344.17 per month. By decision and order of this Court dated December 5, 2006, the appealwas held in abeyance and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, to"report, based upon the evidence and other written submissions of counsel, as to how theSupreme Court calculated the awards of maintenance and child support" (see Sirgant v Sirgant, 35 AD3d437, 438 [2006]). The Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), has filed its report alongwith the parties' submissions upon which its determination was based.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, (1) bydeleting the provision thereof directing the husband to pay the wife nondurational maintenance inthe sum of $825 per month and substituting therefor a provision directing the husband to pay thewife the sum of $1,250 per month for five years, and (2) by deleting the provision thereofdirecting the husband to pay child support to the wife in the sum of $1,344.17 per month andsubstituting therefor a provision directing the husband to pay child support to the wife in the sumof $1,171.18 per month, such amount to be reduced as each child reaches the age of 21 oremancipation; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costsor disbursements.[*2]
The amount and duration of maintenance is a mattercommitted to the sound discretion of the trial court and must be determined on a case-by-casebasis (see Scarlett v Scarlett, 35AD3d 710, 711 [2006]; Chalif v Chalif, 298 AD2d 348 [2002]). The overridingpurpose of a maintenance award is to give the spouse economic independence, and it should beawarded for a duration that would provide the recipient with enough time to becomeself-supporting (see Scarlett v Scarlett,35 AD3d 710 [2006], supra; Bains v Bains, 308 AD2d 557, 559 [2003];Chalif v Chalif, 298 AD2d 348 [2002], supra). Under the circumstances, the trialcourt providently exercised its discretion in awarding the wife maintenance, but the court erred inawarding her nondurational maintenance in the sum of $825 per month. Of note, the wiferequested a maintenance award of $15,000 per year for a period of five years. We find, based onthe evidence, that an award of $1,250 per month for a period of five years is appropriate in lightof the wife's ability to become self-supporting.
In calculating the amount of basic child support, the Supreme Court properly exercised itsdiscretion in applying the statutory percentages to the parties' combined income in excess of$80,000 for the reasons set forth in the Supreme Court's report, and we decline to disturb thatdetermination (see Matter of Cassano v Cassano, 85 NY2d 649 [1995]; Bains vBains, 308 AD2d 557 [2003], supra). However, the Supreme Court erred in itscomputation of the award by failing to deduct the amount of the maintenance award from thehusband's income (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [b] [5] [vii] [C];Chalif v Chalif, 298 AD2d at 349; Beece v Beece, 289 AD2d 352, 353 [2001]),and by utilizing an incorrect adjusted gross income for the husband. Thus, the basic child supportaward should have been computed to be $1,171.18 per month.
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Krausman, Lifson andLunn, JJ., concur.