| Faello v Faello |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06946 [43 AD3d 1102] |
| September 25, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Donald Faello, Respondent, v Rosetta Faello,Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael B. Schulman & Associates, P.C., Melville, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals from a judgment ofthe Supreme Court, Nassau County (Stack, J.), entered February 6, 2006, which, after a nonjurytrial, and upon a decision of the same court dated October 20, 2005, inter alia, directed that theplaintiff husband receive the sum of $200,000 from the net proceeds of the sale of the parties'residence in Florida, with 85% of the remaining balance distributed to the husband and 15%distributed to her, and awarded her maintenance in the sum of only $600 per month for a periodof 54 months.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the wife's contention, the court's distribution of the proceeds of the sale of theparties' Florida residence was proper. While the Florida residence, purchased in the parties' jointnames, was marital property, the husband used proceeds from the sale of his separate property topurchase the residence as well as its furnishings and incidentals. Therefore, there is no basis uponwhich to disturb the court's finding that the husband was entitled to the sum of $200,000 for thepurchase price of the house and its furnishings and incidentals, which were derived from hisseparate property (see Herzog v Herzog,18 AD3d 707 [2005]; Kozlowski v Kozlowski, 221 AD2d 322 [1995]).Equitable distribution does not necessarily mean equal distribution, and the record shows that theSupreme Court properly considered the relevant statutory factors in determining the distribution(see Arrigo v Arrigo, 38 AD3d807 [2007]; Falgoust v Falgoust,15 AD3d 612 [2005]; Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d]).[*2]
The wife's contention that the award of durationalmaintenance was insufficient is without merit. The amount and duration of maintenance iscommitted to the sound discretion of the trial court, and every case must be determined on itsunique facts (see Mora v Mora, 39AD3d 829 [2007]). Considering the factors relevant to an award of maintenance as set forthin Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a), the court providently exercised its discretionin awarding the wife durational maintenance in the sum of $600 per month for a period of 54months.
The wife's remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Skelos, Covello andMcCarthy, JJ., concur.