| Winter v Winter |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03306 [50 AD3d 431] |
| April 15, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Silke Winter, Respondent-Appellant, v Pierre Winter,Appellant-Respondent. |
—[*1] Chemtob Moss Forman & Talbert, LLP, New York (Paul M. Talbert of counsel), forrespondent-appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Visitaci�n-Lewis, J.), entered January11, 2007, after a nonjury trial, to the extent appealed and cross-appealed from, setting amounts ofspousal maintenance, child support and defendant husband's share of add-on child expenses,allocating marital property and assets subject to certain credits including accounting for wastefuldissipation, denying defendant credit for pendente lite mortgage payments on the maritalresidence, and ordering defendant to pay 40% of plaintiff's legal fees, unanimously modified, onthe facts, to reduce defendant's obligation with respect to plaintiff's legal fees to 30%, and toreduce the value assigned to the parties' Jeep Cherokee from $15,000 to $11,000, and otherwiseaffirmed, without costs.
The parties were married in 1997 and have one child, born in 2002. This divorce action wascommenced in 2004. The parties stipulated to the grounds, and the financial aspects were triedover the course of six days, during which defendant appeared pro se.
To a large extent, defendant's appeal is based on the court's determinations that a gift fromplaintiff's father toward the purchase of the marital home was a gift of separate property to herand that she individually owned certain bank accounts and income-producing property inGermany. These determinations were made by the court based upon its finding that defendant'stestimony as to these assets lacked credibility, in contrast to the testimony of plaintiff and herfather, both of whom the court found to be credible. We see no basis in the record to disturbthese findings of credibility, which are entitled to great weight on appeal (see Antes vAntes, 304 AD2d 597 [2003]).
In determining the value of the Jeep Cherokee, the court used the vehicle's 2004 purchaseprice of $15,000. In her September 30, 2005 net worth statement, plaintiff valued that asset at$11,000. In the absence of any other evidence as to the vehicle's worth, plaintiff's valuationshould have been adopted by the court.
At trial, while defendant generally preserved his right to challenge the reasonableness ofattorney fees incurred by plaintiff, he did so by asking limited questions that fail to provide abasis for disturbing the court's findings on this issue. To the extent that defendant now objects tothe amount of fees as unsupported by documentary evidence in the form of bills or time sheets,[*2]such objection has been waived by his failure to request anevidentiary hearing at the time of trial (see Adler v Adler, 203 AD2d 81 [1994]).However, in the circumstances presented, we find the percentage of plaintiff's attorney's fees forwhich defendant is responsible is excessive to the extent indicated (Domestic Relations Law§ 237 [a]).
The court properly considered the appropriate factors, including the parties' lifestyle, thecustodial parent's financial resources and the child's needs, in determining child support (see Matter of Culhane v Holt, 28 AD3d251 [2006]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Williams and Acosta, JJ.