| Ansour v Ansour |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03030 [61 AD3d 536] |
| April 21, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Michael Ansour, Respondent, v Kristen Kossman Ansour,Appellant. |
—[*1] Teitler & Teitler, LLP, New York (Nicholas Lobenthal of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered February 28, 2008,to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, awarding defendant maintenance of $6,000per month until the month she receives her first deferred-income payment due in 2010 as part ofequitable distribution, ordering plaintiff to pay $6,343.75 per month in basic child support, to berecalculated in 2008 to include maintenance payments defendant has received, and orderingplaintiff to pay $80,000 to defendant's counsel and $15,000 to defendant's expert accountant,unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Income was imputed to defendant from her interest in a limited partnership, which shereports on her federal income tax return as tax-exempt. This was appropriate in light of thecourt's finding that defendant was not forthcoming about this interest (cf. Brenner v Brenner, 52 AD3d322 [2008]).
The child support award was properly based on the children's actual needs and the amountrequired for a lifestyle appropriate for them (see Matter of Vladlena B. v Mathias G., 52 AD3d 431 [2008]). Asto the court's direction that child support be recalculated in 2008 to include defendant's incomefrom maintenance, such maintenance payments received and reported on a party's most recentlyfiled income tax return should be included as income for purposes of calculating child support(Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [b] [5] [i]; Matter of Krukenkamp v Krukenkamp, 54 AD3d 345 [2008];Matter of Diamond v Diamond, 254 AD2d 288, 289 [1998]). Of course, upon expirationof the maintenance payments in 2010, defendant may seek to modify the child support awardaccordingly.
The amount and duration of maintenance is a matter committed to the sound discretion of thetrial court, and every case must be determined on its own unique facts (Wortman v Wortman, 11 AD3d604, 606 [2004]). Here, including pendente lite maintenance, defendant was awarded sevenyears of maintenance, which is equivalent to the length of the marriage. In addition, as the trialcourt noted in considering all the relevant factors, the marital lifestyle was not lavish, defendantreceived over $2 million in equitable distribution, she was not forthcoming about her separateproperty, she was only 44 years old, and she held two master's degrees that would allow her tobecome gainfully employed in the near future. Moreover, the court crafted the maintenanceaward to terminate when the children became 12 years old and defendant would [*2]begin receiving deferred income from the equitable distributionsettlement. Defendant's comparison of this case to those in which lifetime maintenance wasawarded is without merit, since those cases involved marriages of long duration (seeHickland v Hickland, 39 NY2d 1 [1976], cert denied 429 US 941 [1976]; Kay vKay, 37 NY2d 632 [1975]), where the recipient spouse had little or no career experience(Phillips v Phillips, 182 AD2d 746, 747 [1992]; Reingold v Reingold, 143 AD2d126 [1988]), or where the recipient spouse's age and medical condition were factors (Loeb vLoeb, 186 AD2d 174 [1992]).
In light of the considerable distributive award and defendant's conduct unnecessarilyprotracting and complicating this action, the trial court providently exercised its discretion inawarding defendant only a portion of her counsel and expert fees (see Azizo v Azizo, 51 AD3d 438[2008]; Kumar v Dudani, 281 AD2d 178 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 603[2001]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, McGuire, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.