Puglisi v. Puglisi

16 A.D.3d 477, 791 N.Y.S.2d 181, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2633
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 14, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 477 (Puglisi v. Puglisi) 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
Puglisi v. Puglisi, 16 A.D.3d 477, 791 N.Y.S.2d 181, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2633 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Spolzino, J.), dated August 5, 2003, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, failed to award him maintenance, determined that a certain investment account was marital property, and distributed the defendant’s pension fund and certain real property solely to the defendant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In distributing the marital property, the Supreme Court properly considered the fact that the parties led separate economic existences throughout their marriage. Consequently, the court properly distributed the parties’ Cape Cod residence to the defendant while crediting the plaintiff with an appropriate cash credit (see Schupak v Schupak, 288 AD2d 91 [2001]; Moody v Moody, 172 AD2d 730 [1991]; Ierardi v Ierardi, 151 AD2d 548 [1989]), and distributed the defendant’s pension entirely to her (cf. Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481 [1984]; Hamza v Hamza, 247 AD2d 444 [1998]).

The amount and duration of maintenance is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court (see Gainey v Gainey, 303 AD2d 628 [2003]; Matter of Kornfeld v Kornfeld, 224 AD2d 620 [1996]). Under the circumstances of this case, the denial of the plaintiffs application for maintenance was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Adams, S. Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Galanopoulos v. Galanopoulos
2017 NY Slip Op 5807 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 A.D.3d 477, 791 N.Y.S.2d 181, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puglisi-v-puglisi-nyappdiv-2005.