Pocchia v. Pocchia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pocchia v. Pocchia

288 A.D.2d 282, 732 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10884

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 282 (Pocchia v. Pocchia) 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

Pocchia v. Pocchia, 288 A.D.2d 282, 732 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), dated July 18, 2000, as, after trial, awarded the plaintiff one-half of the value of his enhanced earning capacity as a result of a law degree he obtained during the marriage.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff one-half of the value of the defendant’s enhanced earning capacity and substituting therefor a provision awarding her 40% of such value; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for a recalculation of the plaintiff’s award.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court [283]*283properly awarded the plaintiff a portion of his enhanced earning capacity arising from a law degree he obtained during the marriage (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [c]; O’Brien v O’Brien, 66 NY2d 576; Vainchenker v Vainchenker, 242 AD2d 620). However, we find that the plaintiff’s contributions to the earning of the degree warranted an award of only 40% of the value of the same (see, Morrongiello v Paulsen, 195 AD2d 594).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), dated July 18, 2000, as, after trial, awarded the plaintiff one-half of the value of his enhanced earning capacity as a result of a law degree he obtained during the marriage.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff one-half of the value of the defendant’s enhanced earning capacity and substituting therefor a provision awarding her 40% of such value; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for a recalculation of the plaintiff’s award.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court [283]*283properly awarded the plaintiff a portion of his enhanced earning capacity arising from a law degree he obtained during the marriage (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [c]; O’Brien v O’Brien, 66 NY2d 576; Vainchenker v Vainchenker, 242 AD2d 620). However, we find that the plaintiff’s contributions to the earning of the degree warranted an award of only 40% of the value of the same (see, Morrongiello v Paulsen, 195 AD2d 594).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 282, 732 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pocchia-v-pocchia-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack