| Hughes v Hughes |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03777 [84 AD3d 1745] |
| May 6, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| Susan T. Hughes, Appellant, v Scott H. Hughes,Respondent. |
—[*1]
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Frank Caruso, J.), enteredFebruary 24, 2010 in a divorce action. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, directeddefendant to pay plaintiff maintenance for a period of six years.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed onthe law without costs, the 11th decretal paragraph is vacated and the matter is remitted toSupreme Court, Niagara County, for further proceedings in accordance with the followingmemorandum: Plaintiff, as limited by her brief, appeals from that part of an order directingdefendant to pay plaintiff maintenance for a period of six years. "Although the order is subsumedin the final judgment of divorce subsequently entered and the appeal properly lies from thejudgment," we exercise our discretion to treat the notice of appeal as valid and deem the appealtaken from the judgment (Nichols v Nichols [appeal No. 1], 291 AD2d 875 [2002];see CPLR 5520 [c]). According to plaintiff, Supreme Court should not have set adurational limit on the award of maintenance. The record before us does not contain the financialstatements of either party, and the testimony of the parties and other evidence does notsufficiently detail the parties' expenses. Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (4) (a) requiresthat "[i]n all matrimonial actions and proceedings in which . . . maintenance. . . is in issue, there shall be compulsory disclosure by both parties of theirrespective financial states," including sworn statements of net worth, representative paycheckstubs, recent federal and state tax returns, and W-2 statements. Without sufficient information inthe record, we are unable to determine whether the court erred in setting a durational limit on theaward of maintenance. We therefore reverse the judgment insofar as appealed from, vacate theaward of maintenance and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a new hearing on the amountand duration of maintenance to be awarded to plaintiff (see id.; see generally Matter of Harvey vBenedict, 83 AD3d 1402 [2011]). Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley,Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.