| Damas v Damas |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04460 [51 AD3d 709] |
| May 13, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| J. Jude Damas, Appellant, v Sylvie Damas,Respondent. |
—[*1] Miller, Miller & Shandler, Haverstraw, N.Y. (Phyllis W. Shandler of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief,from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), entered May9, 2007, as, upon a decision dated February 23, 2007, made after a nonjury trial, equitablydistributed the marital assets, awarded the defendant maintenance in the sum of $100 per monthfor a period of 36 months, and awarded an attorney's fee in the sum of $2,500.
Ordered that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision is deemed apremature notice of appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.
The plaintiff's contention that the defendant should not have been awarded maintenance iswithout merit. The amount and duration of maintenance is committed to the sound discretion ofthe trial court (see Griggs v Griggs,44 AD3d 710,711-712 [2007]). Here, given the disparity between the parties' incomes,and the fact that the defendant still needed credits to obtain her nursing degree, we find that thecourt providently exercised its discretion in awarding her maintenance in the sum of $100 permonth for a period of 36 months.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the court properly exercised its discretion in awarding[*2]an attorney's fee in the sum of $2,500 to the defendant. Thecourt considered the "financial circumstances of both parties together with all the othercircumstances of the case" (DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]).
Finally, the defendant's use of marital assets to pay for "basic living expenses" did notconstitute "wasteful dissipation" (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d] [11]; Sinha v Sinha, 17 AD3d131,133-134 [2005]). Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Lifson and Leventhal, JJ., concur.