| Hannan v Hannan |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02259 [116 AD3d 660] |
| April 2, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Lisa Hannan, Respondent-Appellant, v MichaelHannan, Appellant-Respondent. |
—[*1] Mangi & Graham, LLP, Westbury, N.Y. (James J. Graham of counsel), forrespondent-appellant.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by hisbrief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeStefano, J.),dated March 22, 2012, as, upon a decision of the same court dated July 25, 2011, madeafter a nonjury trial, and upon an order of the same court dated February 6, 2012, interalia, denying those branches of the defendant's motion which were, in effect, pursuant toCPLR 4404 (b) to set aside certain portions of the decision, awarded the plaintiffmaintenance in the sum of $4,500 per month, to be increased to $5,300 per month uponthe emancipation of the parties' older son, for a period of 16 years, and awarded theplaintiff the sum of $35,000 for counsel fees, and the plaintiff cross-appeals, as limitedby her brief, from so much of the same judgment as awarded her the sum of only $3,000per month for child support and failed to award her a credit for certain marital assetsallegedly dissipated by the defendant.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from,without costs or disbursements.
The defendant's contention that the maintenance award is excessive in amount andduration is without merit. "[T]he amount and duration of maintenance is a mattercommitted to the sound discretion of the trial court, and every case must be determinedon its own unique facts. In determining the amount and duration of an award ofmaintenance, the court must consider the factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law§ 236 (B) (6) (a), which include the predivorce standard of living of the parties, theincome and property of the parties, the equitable distribution of marital property, theduration of the marriage, the present and future earning capacity of the parties, the abilityof the party seeking maintenance to be self-supporting, and the reduced or lost earningcapacity of the party seeking maintenance" (Levitt v Levitt, 97 AD3d 543, 544 [2012] [citation andinternal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the Supreme Court properly considered therelevant factors, which included the long duration of the marriage, the plaintiff'sextended absence from the work force, and the parties' predivorce standard of living, andprovidently exercised its discretion in fashioning the maintenance award (see id.;Siskind v Siskind, 89 AD3d832, 833 [2011]; Litvak vLitvak, 63 AD3d 691, 691-692 [2009]; Fitzpatrick v Fitzpatrick, 43 AD3d 991, 992 [2007]).[*2]
In addition, the Supreme Court providentlyexercised its discretion in awarding counsel fees to the plaintiff in the sum of $35,000(see Franco v Franco, 97AD3d 785, 786-787 [2012]; Litvak v Litvak, 63 AD3d at 693; Jayaram v Jayaram, 62 AD3d951, 954 [2009]; Costa vCosta, 46 AD3d 495, 496-497 [2007]).
Moreover, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding childsupport to the plaintiff in the amount of $3,000 per month. Contrary to the plaintiff'scontention, the court's decision to cap the defendant's income for child support purposesis supported by the record (seeLago v Adrion, 93 AD3d 697, 699 [2012]).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Leventhaland Duffy, JJ., concur.