| Post v Post |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09014 [68 AD3d 741] |
| December 1, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Monica Post, Respondent, v Daniel Post,Appellant. |
—[*1] Marvin Newberg, Monticello, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from so much of ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Woods, J.), dated March 26, 2008, as awardedthe plaintiff the sum of $175,000, representing one half of the value of the marital residence afterawarding him a separate property credit in the sum of $140,000, awarded the plaintiff the sum of$43,000 as her share of his business, awarded the plaintiff 50% of the money in various bankaccounts after awarding her a separate property credit in the sum of $60,000, determined that theplaintiff's residence was separate property, and awarded her the furnishings in her possession.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and the facts, (1) by deleting the provisionthereof awarding the plaintiff the sum of $175,000, representing one half of the value of themarital residence after awarding the defendant a separate property credit in the sum of $140,000,and substituting therefor a provisions awarding her the sum of $141,000, representing one half ofthe value of the marital residence after awarding the defendant a separate property credit in thesum of $208,000, (2) by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff the sum of $43,000as her share of the defendant's business, and (3) by deleting the provision thereof awarding theplaintiff the furnishings in her possession; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar asappealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court,Orange County, for the entry of an amended judgment awarding the defendant 50% of thefurnishings following determination of the items to which he is entitled.
The marital residence was purchased by the defendant in 1985. In 2001, after the partieswere married, the marital residence was transferred from the defendant to himself and theplaintiff, as tenants by the entirety. Later, the property was transferred into the plaintiff's namealone.
In Coffey v Coffey (119 AD2d 620, 622 [1986]), this Court held that a husband'sconveyance of his real property to himself and his wife, as tenants by the entirety, "evidenced anintention that the wife have an ownership interest in [the] assets" (see also Monks v Monks,134 AD2d 334 [1987]). We, therefore, concluded that the assets in issue, which had beenplaced in the parties' joint names, were properly characterized as marital property, within themeaning of Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (1) (c). This Court further recognized,however, that "there is no requirement that the distribution of each item of marital property be onan equal or 50-50 basis" (Arvantides v Arvantides, 64 NY2d 1033, 1034 [1985]; seeParsons v Parsons, 101 AD2d 1017 [1984]). Accordingly, we ruled in Coffey thatthe husband was entitled to receive a credit for the contribution of his separate property towardthe creation of the marital assets.[*2]
Turning to the facts of the instant case, and mindful ofthe principles set forth in the Coffey decision, we conclude that the trial court properlyawarded the defendant a credit for his contribution of his separate property toward the creationof the marital assets. However, the amount of the credit awarded was insufficient. Under thecircumstances of this case, the defendant was entitled to a credit in the amount of $208,000.
Also, the court erred in awarding the plaintiff a portion of the defendant's business. Theplaintiff, as the party seeking an interest in the business, submitted no proof of its value, andfailed to identify the business assets (see Goudreau v Goudreau, 283 AD2d 684 [2001];LaBarre v LaBarre, 251 AD2d 1008 [1998]; Antoian v Antoian, 215 AD2d 421,422 [1995]). The Supreme Court did not determine any assets of the business, but awarded theplaintiff $43,000 based upon the defendant's income. The court's award is not supported by therecord as there was no proof of business value or assets.
Furthermore, the court erred in not awarding the defendant a portion of the furnishings in theplaintiff's possession. The record shows that the plaintiff took many of the parties' maritalpossessions, particularly furniture, without the defendant's knowledge. The Supreme Courtshould have directed the distribution of 50% of the actual furnishings to the defendant.Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, to award thedefendant 50% of the furnishings, following a hearing.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Miller, Dickersonand Leventhal, JJ., concur.