| Genatowski v Genatowski |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06949 [43 AD3d 1105] |
| September 25, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| S. Lane Genatowski, Respondent-Appellant, v RoseleeGenatowski, Appellant-Respondent. |
—[*1] Neal S. Comer, White Plains, N.Y., for respondent-appellant.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief,from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Montagnino, Ct.Atty. Ref.), entered September 9, 2005, which, inter alia, upon a decision of the same court datedJuly 27, 2005, awarded her, in effect, the sum of only $962,421 as a distributive award, awardedher maintenance for a period of only five years, and declined to award her an equitable share incertain stock options, and the plaintiff cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of thesame judgment as awarded the defendant maintenance and allegedly awarded the defendant thesame marital asset twice.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting the provisionthereof which, upon the decision dated July 27, 2005, awarded the defendant, in effect, the sumof only $962,421 as a distributive award, and substituting therefor a provision awarding thedefendant the sum of $1,043,923; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealedand cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to both parties' contentions, on this record, the trial court providently exercised itsdiscretion in fixing the amount and duration of maintenance awarded to the defendant (see Scarlett v Scarlett, 35 AD3d710, 711 [2006]), after due consideration of the relevant factors (see DomesticRelations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a] [1]-[11]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, despitethe disparity in the parties' incomes, a lifetime award of maintenance would be inequitable inview of her sizable distributive award, and her equal share of the retirement assets.[*2]
Moreover, the trial court providently exercised itsdiscretion in denying the defendant's application for additional counsel fees (seeDomestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; Engel v Jacobs, 297 AD2d 657, 658[2002]; Garver v Garver, 253 AD2d 512, 514 [1998]), and in declining to compel theplaintiff to continue providing her with health insurance (see Kammerer v Kammerer, 38 AD3d 846 [2007]).
In calculating the value of the liquid marital assets subject to equitable distribution, the trialcourt erred in crediting the plaintiff for his share of $163,004 in taxes paid by deducting the sumof $81,502 from the defendant's distributive award when, in fact, the court had already accountedfor this sum by deducting the sum of $163,004 from the marital estate prior to calculating thedefendant's distributive award. Accordingly, the defendant's distributive award should beincreased by the sum of $81,502.
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher andCovello, JJ., concur.