| Almonte v Almonte |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 05121 [108 AD3d 1056] |
| July 5, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| Katherine M. Almonte, Respondent, v Robert J. Almonte,Appellant. |
—[*1] Dennis S. Lerner, Syracuse, D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs. (John A. Cirando of counsel),for plaintiff-respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Kevin G. Young,J.), entered September 15, 2011. The judgment, inter alia, directed defendant to paymaintenance, temporary child support arrears, and temporary maintenance arrears.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified onthe law by reducing the amount of temporary maintenance arrears specified in the twelfthordering paragraph to $1,875, and as modified the judgment is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment of divorce that, inter alia,directed him to pay maintenance, temporary child support arrears, and temporarymaintenance arrears. We reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court abused itsdiscretion in setting the amount of maintenance; rather, "[t]he record establishes that thecourt appropriately considered [plaintiff's] 'reasonable needs and predivorce standard ofliving in the context of the other enumerated statutory factors' set forth in DomesticRelations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a)" (Frost v Frost, 49 AD3d 1150, 1151 [2008], quotingHartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 52 [1995]). Contrary to defendant's furthercontention, the court also properly directed the amount of maintenance to increase at thetime of the emancipation of the parties' youngest child. That event was an "imminent andmeasurable change" that was to occur less than six months following entry of the divorcejudgment (Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481, 494 [1984]). We agree withdefendant, however, that the court erred in calculating the amount of arrears owedpursuant to a prior temporary order, which directed him to pay maintenance and childsupport. The amount designated as temporary child support arrears in the eleventhordering paragraph of the judgment, $4,810, is included, incorrectly, within the amountdesignated as temporary maintenance arrears in the twelfth ordering paragraph of thejudgment, $6,685. We therefore modify the judgment accordingly. Plaintiff failed to takea cross appeal from the judgment and we thus do not address her contention that thecourt erred in failing to make the awards of child support and maintenance retroactive tothe date of commencement of the action (see Oliver v Oliver, 70 AD3d 1428, 1430 [2010]; Brenner v Brenner, 52 AD3d322, 323 [2008]). Present—Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni, Valentino and Whalen,JJ.