| Guy v Guy |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04359 [118 AD3d 1352] |
| June 13, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| Lisa M. Guy, Respondent, v Eric E. Guy,Appellant. |
Justin S. White, Williamsville, for defendant-appellant.
Law Offices of John P. Pieri, Buffalo (John P. Pieri of counsel), forplaintiff-respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frederick J. Marshall,J.), entered January 9, 2013 in a divorce action. The judgment, among other things,adjudged that neither party shall pay spousal maintenance to the other.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmedwithout costs.
Memorandum: Defendant husband appeals from a judgment of divorce that, insofaras appealed from, confirmed in relevant part the report of the Matrimonial Referee(Referee) appointed to hear and report with respect to the issues of maintenance andequitable distribution. In the judgment, Supreme Court ordered that neither party shallpay spousal maintenance to the other and equitably distributed the marital debt. Contraryto defendant's contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in failing to award himmaintenance. The Referee properly considered the factors set forth in Domestic RelationsLaw § 236 (B) (6) (a) in determining that an award of maintenance todefendant was not warranted (see Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 51 [1995]; Sofien v Noel, 60 AD3d1387, 1387 [2009]), and the court properly confirmed that part of the Referee'sreport. Although plaintiff earns more than defendant and although defendantpays child support, neither fact, by itself or in combination with the other, requires thecourt to award maintenance to defendant (see generally § 236 [B][6] [a]).
Defendant further contends that the court erred in failing to allocate between theparties certain marital debt consisting of credit card balances in his name. Defendant,however, failed to submit evidence that a balance transfer to one credit card and theoutstanding balances on two other credit cards reflected marital expenses (see Lopezv Saldana, 309 AD2d 655, 656 [2003]). The record therefore supports the Referee'sfinding, as confirmed by the court, that those amounts did not constitute marital debt tobe allocated (see Cabeche vCabeche, 10 AD3d 441, 441 [2004]; see also Greenwald v Greenwald,164 AD2d 706, 720-721 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 855 [1991]).Present—Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Sconiers and DeJoseph, JJ.