Cameron v. Cameron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cameron v. Cameron

238 A.D.2d 925, 661 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4733

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 25, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 925 (Cameron v. Cameron) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cameron v. Cameron, 238 A.D.2d 925, 661 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4733 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: The amount of maintenance awarded to plaintiff reflects an appropriate balancing of plaintiffs needs and defendant’s ability to pay, and we decline to disturb Supreme Court’s exercise of discretion (see, Fischer v Fischer, 199 AD2d 1028, 1029; Torgersen v Torgersen, 188 AD2d 1023, 1024, Iv denied 81 NY2d 709). The court did not err in failing to include plaintiffs receipt of either Social Security benefits or disability payments through Social Security [926]*926Supplemental Income as events that would automatically terminate maintenance. Should those events occur and result in a change of plaintiffs financial circumstances warranting modification of the maintenance provisions, defendant may move to modify the judgment accordingly (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]).

We agree with defendant, however, that he is entitled to a credit in the amount of $9,666.72 for a withdrawal made by plaintiff from a joint line of credit with First USA Visa without defendant’s knowledge or consent. Plaintiff stipulated that she withdrew the sum of $8,000 from the joint line of credit and failed to account for it. Consequently, we modify the judgment by providing a credit to defendant in the amount of $9,666.72, consisting of the amount withdrawn by plaintiff plus accumulated interest, to be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence. The record supports the conclusion that plaintiff’s withdrawals from the Ford Money Market Account and the Woodlawn Auto Workers Federal Credit Union Account were with defendant’s knowledge and were used for family expenditures; therefore, defendant is not entitled to a credit for those withdrawals.

The amount of counsel fees awarded to plaintiff was reasonable. We reject defendant’s argument that the court erred in awarding counsel fees without holding a hearing. The parties stipulated that plaintiff’s application for counsel fees would be made by written submission, and it does not appear from the record before us that defendant submitted responding papers to plaintiff’s application or requested a hearing. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, Jr., J.— Maintenance.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: The amount of maintenance awarded to plaintiff reflects an appropriate balancing of plaintiffs needs and defendant’s ability to pay, and we decline to disturb Supreme Court’s exercise of discretion (see, Fischer v Fischer, 199 AD2d 1028, 1029; Torgersen v Torgersen, 188 AD2d 1023, 1024, Iv denied 81 NY2d 709). The court did not err in failing to include plaintiffs receipt of either Social Security benefits or disability payments through Social Security [926]*926Supplemental Income as events that would automatically terminate maintenance. Should those events occur and result in a change of plaintiffs financial circumstances warranting modification of the maintenance provisions, defendant may move to modify the judgment accordingly (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]).

We agree with defendant, however, that he is entitled to a credit in the amount of $9,666.72 for a withdrawal made by plaintiff from a joint line of credit with First USA Visa without defendant’s knowledge or consent. Plaintiff stipulated that she withdrew the sum of $8,000 from the joint line of credit and failed to account for it. Consequently, we modify the judgment by providing a credit to defendant in the amount of $9,666.72, consisting of the amount withdrawn by plaintiff plus accumulated interest, to be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence. The record supports the conclusion that plaintiff’s withdrawals from the Ford Money Market Account and the Woodlawn Auto Workers Federal Credit Union Account were with defendant’s knowledge and were used for family expenditures; therefore, defendant is not entitled to a credit for those withdrawals.

The amount of counsel fees awarded to plaintiff was reasonable. We reject defendant’s argument that the court erred in awarding counsel fees without holding a hearing. The parties stipulated that plaintiff’s application for counsel fees would be made by written submission, and it does not appear from the record before us that defendant submitted responding papers to plaintiff’s application or requested a hearing. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, Jr., J.— Maintenance.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 925, 661 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cameron-v-cameron-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack