Coburn v. Coburn

300 A.D.2d 212, 752 N.Y.S.2d 319, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13320
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 31, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 212 (Coburn v. Coburn) 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
Coburn v. Coburn, 300 A.D.2d 212, 752 N.Y.S.2d 319, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13320 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

—Order,

Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about April 7, 2000, which denied defendant’s motion for a downward modification of his temporary maintenance obliga[213]*213tion, and judgment, same court and Justice, entered July 10, 2001, which, inter alia, awarded plaintiff maintenance of $20,000 per month and equitably distributed the parties’ marital property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No basis exists for disturbing the trial court’s award of both temporary maintenance and maintenance in the amount of $20,000 per month, which properly considered, among other things, the duration of the marriage, the distribution of the marital assets, the parties’ lavish standard of living during the marriage, their income, property and present and future earning capacity, and plaintiff’s reasonable needs and ability to become self-supporting (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]; Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 50-52; Allen v Allen, 275 AD2d 225, lv denied 96 NY2d 708). Nor is there basis for disturbing the distribution of marital assets, which properly considered the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [c]), including the award of future maintenance for 10 years. The trial court has great flexibility in fashioning an equitable distribution of marital assets, and equitable distribution does not necessarily mean equal distribution (see Greenwald v Greenwald, 164 AD2d 706, 713, lv denied 78 NY2d 855). We have considered the parties’ other arguments for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, P.J., Ellerin, Rubin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Related

Gallen v. Gallen
2020 NY Slip Op 2732 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
M.M. v. D.M.
2018 NY Slip Op 2007 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Motta v. Motta
2016 NY Slip Op 8457 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Bayer v. Bayer
80 A.D.3d 492 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Sinha v. Sinha
38 A.D.3d 475 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Caffrey v. Caffrey
2 A.D.3d 309 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
300 A.D.2d 212, 752 N.Y.S.2d 319, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coburn-v-coburn-nyappdiv-2002.