| Cameron v Cameron |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04246 [51 AD3d 1165] |
| May 8, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Charles R. Cameron, Appellant, v Susan A. Cameron,Respondent. |
—[*1] Laurie L. Paro, Canton, for respondent.
Mercure, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Rogers, J.), entered October 3,2006 in St. Lawrence County, ordering, among other things, equitable distribution of the parties'marital property, upon a decision of the court.
In 2004, the parties divorced after nearly 50 years of marriage. Upon plaintiff's appeal, thisCourt reversed so much of the judgment of divorce as ordered equitable distribution of, amongother things, his pension (22 AD3d 911 [2005]). We remitted the matter to Supreme Court fordistribution of the marital portion of plaintiff's pension, directing the court to give appropriateconsideration to any tax consequences, and for redetermination of his maintenance obligation(id. at 913). Upon remittal, Supreme Court noted that an amended qualified domesticrelations order had been entered subsequent to the judgment of divorce, which properlyrecalculated the marital portion of plaintiff's pension in accordance with the formula set forth inMajauskas v Majauskas (61 NY2d 481, 490, 494 [1984]). The court directed the partiesto submit a proposed distribution of the pension with complete analysis of potential taxconsequences. After both parties failed to submit any evidence regarding tax consequences,Supreme Court deemed the argument waived, redistributed the parties' property, andredetermined maintenance accordingly. Plaintiff appeals, arguing that Supreme Court improperlyfailed to take into account the appropriate tax implications in redistributing his pension, andabused its discretion in awarding defendant permanent maintenance.[*2]
We affirm. In light of plaintiff's failure to submit aproposed distribution and any evidence of associated tax consequences, Supreme Court properlydeclined to consider the tax consequences now asserted before us (see e.g. Altieri v Altieri, 35 AD3d1093, 1095 [2006]; Vicinanzo v Vicinanzo, 193 AD2d 962, 968 [1993];Simmons v Simmons, 159 AD2d 775, 777 [1990]). Moreover, inasmuch as the recordreflects that Supreme Court gave appropriate consideration to the pertinent factors set forth inDomestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a) and the redistribution of property upon remittal,we reject plaintiff's argument that the court abused its discretion in awarding defendantnondurational maintenance of $300 per month (see Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 51-52[1995]; Brzuszkiewicz vBrzuszkiewicz, 28 AD3d 860, 862 [2006]; Kay v Kay, 302 AD2d 711, 712[2003]). Plaintiff's remaining arguments, to the extent not addressed herein, have beenconsidered and found to be lacking in merit.
Cardona, P.J., Spain, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed, without costs.