Rubin v. Rubin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rubin v. Rubin

63 A.D.3d 549, 880 N.Y.S.2d 484

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

DecidedJune 18, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 549 (Rubin v. Rubin) 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

Rubin v. Rubin, 63 A.D.3d 549, 880 N.Y.S.2d 484 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Saralee Evans, J.), entered December 11, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from, awarded defendant taxable maintenance in the amount of $8,000 per month for eight years and thereafter $7,000 per month for two years and retroactive nontaxable maintenance in the amount of $29,700, unanimously modified, on the law, to reduce the retroactive nontaxable maintenance award to $22,200, and to direct defendant to refund plaintiff an overpayment of $7,500 and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court properly determined the amount and duration of maintenance upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a) (see e.g. Spencer v Spencer, 230 AD2d 645, 648 [1996]), particularly the parties’ standard of living before the divorce action was commenced and defendant’s reasonable needs {see Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 51-52 [1995]). The court correctly excluded from its calculation of maintenance plaintiffs earning capacity attributable to his law degree and license and the value of his practice, since these were capitalized and included in the award of equitable distribution (see Grunfeld v Grunfeld, 94 NY2d 696 [2000]; Jarrell v Jarrell, 276 AD2d 353, 353 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 710 [2001]).

The award of retroactive maintenance should have been calculated from February 1, 2007, the date on which this action was commenced {see Solomon v Solomon, 10 AD3d 584 [2004]). Plaintiff having paid defendant $29,700 for a period including January 2007, he is entitled to a pro rata refund of $7,500.

[550]*550Concur—Andrias, J.P, Catterson, Renwick, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Saralee Evans, J.), entered December 11, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from, awarded defendant taxable maintenance in the amount of $8,000 per month for eight years and thereafter $7,000 per month for two years and retroactive nontaxable maintenance in the amount of $29,700, unanimously modified, on the law, to reduce the retroactive nontaxable maintenance award to $22,200, and to direct defendant to refund plaintiff an overpayment of $7,500 and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court properly determined the amount and duration of maintenance upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a) (see e.g. Spencer v Spencer, 230 AD2d 645, 648 [1996]), particularly the parties’ standard of living before the divorce action was commenced and defendant’s reasonable needs {see Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 51-52 [1995]). The court correctly excluded from its calculation of maintenance plaintiffs earning capacity attributable to his law degree and license and the value of his practice, since these were capitalized and included in the award of equitable distribution (see Grunfeld v Grunfeld, 94 NY2d 696 [2000]; Jarrell v Jarrell, 276 AD2d 353, 353 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 710 [2001]).

The award of retroactive maintenance should have been calculated from February 1, 2007, the date on which this action was commenced {see Solomon v Solomon, 10 AD3d 584 [2004]). Plaintiff having paid defendant $29,700 for a period including January 2007, he is entitled to a pro rata refund of $7,500.

[550]*550Concur—Andrias, J.P, Catterson, Renwick, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 549, 880 N.Y.S.2d 484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubin-v-rubin-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack