| Abrams v Abrams |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 10106 [57 AD3d 809] |
| December 23, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Michael J. Abrams, Appellant, v Antonetta Abrams,Respondent. |
—[*1] Robert K. Fischl, Garden City, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the former husband appeals, as limited by hisbrief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Stack, J.),entered May 11, 2007, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, awarded the former wifemaintenance in the sums of $2,500 per month for five years and $1,250 per month in each of thesixth, seventh, and eighth years following the entry of the judgment, directed him to transfercertain assets held in his name to the former wife, failed to award him certain credits, anddirected him indefinitely to maintain the parties' child as an irrevocable beneficiary under his lifeinsurance policy.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, (1) bydeleting the provision thereof directing the former husband to pay the former wife maintenancein the sum of $1,250 per month in each of the sixth, seventh, and eighth years following the entryof the judgment, (2) by deleting the provision thereof directing the former husband to transferone half of his stock options to an account in the name of the former wife, and substitutingtherefor a provision awarding the former wife a credit in the sum of $825, representing one halfof the value of the former husband's stock options upon liquidation, (3) by deleting the provisionthereof directing the former husband to turn over to the former wife one half of the savings bondshe purchased during his employment with LILCO/Keyspan and substituting therefor a provisionawarding the former wife a credit in the sum of $500, representing one half of the proceeds fromthe sale of those savings bonds, (4) by adding a provision thereto awarding the former husband acredit [*2]in the sum of $15,215.57, representing his share of theproceeds of a home equity loan obtained by the former wife in connection with investmentresidential property, and (5) by deleting the provision thereof directing the former husbandindefinitely to maintain the parties' child as an irrevocable beneficiary under his life insurancepolicy and substituting therefor a provision directing the former husband to maintain the child asan irrevocable beneficiary under his life insurance policy until the child turns 21 or isemancipated, whichever occurs earlier; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar asappealed from, without costs or disbursements.
"The overriding purpose of a maintenance award is to give the spouse economicindependence, and it should be awarded for a duration that would provide the recipient withenough time to become self-supporting" (Sirgant v Sirgant, 43 AD3d 1034, 1035 [2007]; see Scarlett v Scarlett, 35 AD3d710 [2006]). With this principle in mind, and under the circumstances of this case, the trialcourt properly awarded the former wife (hereinafter the wife) maintenance, but it improvidentlyexercised its discretion in extending the duration of the maintenance award beyond five years.Based upon the evidence adduced, we conclude that an award in the sum of $2,500 per month forfive years is appropriate in this case (seeGriggs v Griggs, 44 AD3d 710 [2007]; Sirgant v Sirgant, 43 AD3d 1034 [2007]).
The former husband (hereinafter the husband) correctly contends that he is entitled to aportion of the proceeds of a home equity loan that the wife obtained with respect to certaininvestment residential property, especially in light of the wife's inability to testify with specificityas to how she spent the proceeds of that loan. This suggests that the wife dissipated these maritalassets in contemplation of divorce (seeXikis v Xikis, 43 AD3d 1040 [2007]). Thus, the judgment must be modified to awardthe husband a credit in the sum of $15,215.57, which represents his share of the proceeds of thatloan, after accounting for the taxes paid by the wife on both the marital residence and theinvestment residential property. The husband's contentions as to certain other credits which theSupreme Court allegedly failed to award him are unpreserved for appellate review since he didnot request this relief before that court (see Hildreth-Henry v Henry, 27 AD3d 419 [2006]; Fascaldi vFascaldi, 209 AD2d 576 [1994]).
The judgment must be further modified to delete the provision directing the husband totransfer one half of his stock options to an account in the name of the wife, and instead awardingthe wife a credit in the sum of $825, which represents one half of the value of those options uponliquidation. In addition, the provision directing the husband to turn over, to the wife, one half ofthe savings bonds he purchased during his employment with LILCO/Keyspan must be deleted,and we instead award the wife a credit in the sum of $500, representing one half of the proceedsfrom the sale of those savings bonds. These modifications are made in view of the fact that thesubject savings bonds have already been sold, and the subject stock options have already beenliquidated.
Finally, we note that a parent has no legal obligation to provide for or contribute to thesupport of a child over the age of 21 (see Forester v Forester, 234 AD2d 264 [1996];Family Ct Act § 413 [1]), or a child who is emancipated (see Matter of Fortunato vFortunato, 242 AD2d 720 [1997]). Therefore, the court erred in failing to direct that thehusband need only maintain the child as a beneficiary on his life insurance policy until the childreaches the age of 21 or is sooner emancipated (see Forester v Forester, 234 AD2d 264[1996]). Skelos, J.P., Lifson, Santucci and Balkin, JJ., concur.