Contino v. Contino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Contino v. Contino

140 A.D.2d 662, 529 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6114

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

DecidedMay 31, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 140 A.D.2d 662 (Contino v. Contino) 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

Contino v. Contino, 140 A.D.2d 662, 529 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6114 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

The trial court properly awarded the defendant $105,000 for funds that the plaintiff withdrew from bank accounts and concealed so they could not be distributed. Both parties testified that they enjoyed an affluent life-style, including expensive cars, costly vacations, private schooling for their child, and similar indulgences. Such a life-style could not be supported either on the income or by the resources that the plaintiff revealed to the trial court. Secreting assets in order to prevent the trial court from making an equitable distribu[663]*663tion of property supports a finding of economic fault (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [c]; [5] [d] [11]; Blickstein v Blickstein, 99 AD2d 287, 292-294; cf., Griffin v Griffin, 115 AD2d 587, 588). Once such a finding is made, the trial court must consider the missing assets in making its distributive award (see, Harrell v Harrell, 120 AD2d 565, 566).

The trial court nevertheless erred in ordering that all of the money in the joint accounts be released to the defendant. The defendant’s entitlement is limited to $220,000, representing one half of $230,000, plus $105,000.

We have considered the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

The trial court properly awarded the defendant $105,000 for funds that the plaintiff withdrew from bank accounts and concealed so they could not be distributed. Both parties testified that they enjoyed an affluent life-style, including expensive cars, costly vacations, private schooling for their child, and similar indulgences. Such a life-style could not be supported either on the income or by the resources that the plaintiff revealed to the trial court. Secreting assets in order to prevent the trial court from making an equitable distribu[663]*663tion of property supports a finding of economic fault (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [c]; [5] [d] [11]; Blickstein v Blickstein, 99 AD2d 287, 292-294; cf., Griffin v Griffin, 115 AD2d 587, 588). Once such a finding is made, the trial court must consider the missing assets in making its distributive award (see, Harrell v Harrell, 120 AD2d 565, 566).

The trial court nevertheless erred in ordering that all of the money in the joint accounts be released to the defendant. The defendant’s entitlement is limited to $220,000, representing one half of $230,000, plus $105,000.

We have considered the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 662, 529 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/contino-v-contino-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack