| Orioli v Orioli |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 04699 [129 AD3d 1154] |
| June 4, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| Linda Orioli, Respondent, v Paul Orioli,Appellant. |
Hinman, Howard & Kattell, LLP, Binghamton (Michael S. Sinicki of counsel),for appellant.
Woodman & Getman, Waterville (William H. Getman of counsel), forrespondent.
McCarthy, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Dowd, J.), enteredSeptember 5, 2013 in Chenango County, ordering, among other things, maintenance toplaintiff, upon a decision of the court.
Plaintiff (hereinafter the wife) and defendant (hereinafter the husband) were marriedin 1989 and have two children. In 2009, the wife commenced this action for divorce.Supreme Court awarded the wife temporary maintenance in the amount of $1,500 perweek, child support, interim counsel fees and half of her expert fees. The partiesthereafter entered into a stipulation that resolved all issues of equitable distribution. Aftera bench trial, the court found that the wife was entitled to, among other things, anondurational maintenance award of $78,000 per year, to be decreased to $50,000 peryear once she reaches the age of 62, such award to be paid in weekly installments and tobe terminated upon either party's death or the wife's remarriage. The husband nowappeals and contests that maintenance award.
Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in its maintenance award to the wife. Theamount and duration of a maintenance award is left to the sound discretion of the trialcourt that has considered the statutory factors and the parties' predivorce standard ofliving (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]; Fisher v Fisher, 122 AD3d1032, 1033 [2014]; Cornishv Eraca-Cornish, 107 AD3d 1322, 1324 [2013]). A spouse's "ability to becomeself-supporting with respect to some standard of living in no way (1) obviates the needfor the court to consider the predivorce standard of living; and (2) certainly does notcreate a per se bar to lifetime maintenance" (Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 52[1995] [citation and emphasis omitted]; accord [*2]Bean v Bean, 53AD3d 718, 723 [2008]).
Supreme Court expressly addressed numerous statutory factors and the predivorcestandard of living. Among other things, it considered the evidence that the marriage wasof a long duration and that the wife was capable of working and earning at least $32,000a year. It noted that the wife did not require additional time or training to gain suchemployment and that her earning capacity was not affected by her choice not to workduring portions of the marriage. It further considered the evidence that one of the parties'children resided with the wife, that maintenance would be taxable for the wife and taxdeductible for the husband and that the wife had wastefully dissipated $120,000 ofmarital assets. In addition, the court noted the wife's lack of candor in her statement ofnet worth. The court also considered that, as of 2009, the husband had reported incomeof approximately $425,000, while the wife had no income that year. Finally, the courtcredited evidence that the wife had enjoyed a comfortable standard of living that wascommensurate with the husband's income. Given the totality of the evidence, we agreethat it is unlikely that the wife will become self-supporting so as to attain the lifestyle towhich she had been accustomed to during the course of the approximately two-decademarriage and, accordingly, we conclude that nondurational maintenance in the amountawarded, which included a reduction in that award at a set future date, was not an abuseof discretion (see Bean v Bean, 53 AD3d at 724; Holterman v Holterman,307 AD2d 442, 442 [2003], affd 3 NY3d 1 [2004]; Kay v Kay, 302AD2d 711, 712 [2003]; Roffey v Roffey, 217 AD2d 864, 867 [1995]).
Egan Jr., Devine and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed,without costs.