| Sinanis v Sinanis |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 00984 [114 AD3d 756] |
| February 13, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Doreen E. Sinanis, Appellant, v Spiro Sinanis,Respondent. (Appeal No. 1.) Doreen E. Sinanis, Respondent-Appellant, v Spiro Sinanis,Appellant-Respondent. (Appeal No. 2.) |
—[*1]
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, (1) the plaintiff appeals from an orderof the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered May 13, 2011, which,inter alia, denied her motion to hold the defendant in contempt, and (2) the defendantappeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from stated portions of a judgmentof the same court (Berliner, J.), dated November 14, 2011, which, among other things,awarded the plaintiff exclusive possession of the marital residence until the parties'youngest child reaches the age of 18, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from the judgment.
Ordered that the plaintiff's appeal from the order and cross appeal from the judgmentare dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
Under the facts of this case, including that the plaintiff was awarded physical custodyof the parties' children and that the defendant failed to establish an immediate need forhis share of the proceeds of the sale of the marital home, the Supreme Court providentlyexercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff exclusive possession and occupancy ofthe marital residence until the youngest child reaches the age of 18 (see Greisman v Greisman, 98AD3d 1079 [2012]; Mossov Mosso, 84 AD3d 757 [2011]).
Further, the defendant failed to meet his burden of proving that the plaintiff hadwastefully dissipated $84,000 of marital assets (see Scher v Scher, 91 AD3d 842 [2012]; Epstein v Messner, 73 AD3d843 [2010]; Raynor vRaynor, 68 AD3d 835 [2009]). The Supreme Court providently exercised its[*2]discretion in declining to credit the defendant withthat sum or any portion thereof (see Schwartz v Schwartz, 67 AD3d 989, 990 [2009]; Saleh v Saleh, 40 AD3d617 [2007]).
The Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in fashioning the awardof counsel fees to the plaintiff (see Guzzo v Guzzo, 110 AD3d 765 [2013]; Franco v Franco, 97 AD3d785 [2012]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Leventhal,Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.