| Goldberg v Goldberg |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06124 [98 AD3d 944] |
| September 12, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Jill Goldberg, Respondent, v Jeffrey A. Goldberg,Appellant. |
—[*1] Elio Zanoni, Lake Ronkonkoma, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals (1) from an order of theSupreme Court, Nassau County (Janowitz, J.), dated March 18, 2011, and (2), as limited by hisbrief, from so much of an amended order of ths same court dated April 13, 2011, as granted theplaintiff's motion for pendente lite relief to the extent of directing him to pay (a) temporarymaintenance in the sum of $10,783.33 per month, nontaxable to the plaintiff, (b) child careexpenses in the sum of $676 per month, (c) 100% of the past due and future unreimbursedmedical expenses of the plaintiff and the parties' children, (d) 50% of the carrying charges for themarital residence, (e) 50% of the expenses related to a Honda Odyssey automobile, (f) 100% ofthe car payment, insurance, registration, and repair expenses related to a Mercedes Benzautomobile, and (g) interim counsel fees in the sum of $30,000.
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated March 18, 2011, is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, as that order was superseded by the amended order dated April 13, 2011; and it isfurther,
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the amended order dated April 13, 2011, as directedthe defendant to pay (a) temporary maintenance in the sum of $10,783.33 per month, nontaxableto the plaintiff, (b) child care expenses in the sum of $676 per month, (c) 100% of the past dueand future unreimbursed medical expenses of the plaintiff, (d) 50% of the carrying charges forthe marital residence, and (e) 100% of the car payment, registration, and repair expenses relatedto a Mercedes Benz automobile is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the appeal fromthose portions of that order has been rendered academic in light of a subsequent order of theSupreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 12, 2012; and it is further,
Ordered that the amended order dated April 13, 2011, is modified, on the law, by deleting theprovision thereof directing the defendant to pay 100% of the past due and future unreimbursedmedical expenses of the parties' children; as so modified, the amended order is affirmed insofaras reviewed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court,Nassau County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.[*2]
The parties married in 2000 and have three children. Theplaintiff is a high school guidance counselor and earns a yearly income of approximately$103,000. At the time this action was commenced, the defendant was an investment banker witha yearly income of approximately $500,000, of which approximately $220,000 was a fixedincome and the remainder was a bonus. The plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce andancillary relief on or about October 13, 2010, and subsequently moved for pendente lite relief,including payment of temporary maintenance, child care expenses, past due and futureunreimbursed medical expenses of the plaintiff and the children, carrying charges for the maritalresidence, expenses related to a Honda Odyssey automobile and a Mercedes Benz automobile,and interim counsel fees.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the plaintiff is the less monied spouse, and theSupreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing him to pay interim counsel fees tothe plaintiff's counsel in the sum of $30,000 (see Domestic Relations Law § 237).
However, the Supreme Court erred in directing the defendant to pay 100% of the past dueand future unreimbursed medical expenses of the children. The obligation for children'sunreimbursed medical expenses is to be prorated in the same proportion as each parent's incomeis to the combined parental income (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c][5] [v]). Accordingly, we modify the amended order by deleting the provision thereof directingthe defendant to pay 100% of the past due and future unreimbursed medical expenses of thechildren, and remit the matter for a calculation of the parties' respective pro rata obligations withregard to these expenses.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Belen, Roman andSgroi, JJ., concur.