Ruo Mei Cai v. Victor Fai Lau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruo Mei Cai v. Victor Fai Lau

133 A.D.3d 541, 19 N.Y.S.3d 412

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

DecidedNovember 24, 2015

Docket16216 309888/09

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 133 A.D.3d 541 (Ruo Mei Cai v. Victor Fai Lau) 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

Ruo Mei Cai v. Victor Fai Lau, 133 A.D.3d 541, 19 N.Y.S.3d 412 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Matthew F. Cooper, J.), entered June 30, 2014, which, after a trial, denied defendant husband any award for enhanced earning capacity and maintenance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying the husband any award of a portion of the wife’s enhanced earning capacity stemming from her United States medical license (see Holterman v Holterman, 3 NY3d 1, 8 [2004]; Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [c], [d]; see also Del Villar v Del Villar, 73 AD3d 651 [1st Dept 2010]). The husband failed to show that he contributed to the wife’s attainment of her license. Prior to the marriage, the wife completed medical school in China and had a medical license in China. Thus, the only marital property was her US medical license, and while the wife did not work from May 2004 to May 2007, as she studied for the exam, she supported herself with her own savings and financial support from her mother, and paid for the exam review course herself. Furthermore, even if the husband were entitled to an award based on the wife’s enhanced earning capacity, he never established the value of such enhanced earning capacity, through expert testimony (see e.g. Heydt-Benjamin v Heydt-Benjamin, 127 AD3d 814, 815 [2d Dept 2015]).

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying the husband an award of maintenance after citing the relevant *542 statutory factors and considering the parties’ pre-divorce standard of living (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]; Alexander v Alexander, 116 AD3d 472, 473 [1st Dept 2014], appeal dismissed 24 NY3d 1050 [2014]). In particular, the wife works part-time while caring for her child from a subsequent marriage, and although the husband has been unemployed for several years, he has a degree in engineering and was previously employed by numerous companies, and appears capable of supporting himself.

The husband’s remaining contentions lack any support in the record. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Matthew F. Cooper, J.), entered June 30, 2014, which, after a trial, denied defendant husband any award for enhanced earning capacity and maintenance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying the husband any award of a portion of the wife’s enhanced earning capacity stemming from her United States medical license (see Holterman v Holterman, 3 NY3d 1, 8 [2004]; Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [c], [d]; see also Del Villar v Del Villar, 73 AD3d 651 [1st Dept 2010]). The husband failed to show that he contributed to the wife’s attainment of her license. Prior to the marriage, the wife completed medical school in China and had a medical license in China. Thus, the only marital property was her US medical license, and while the wife did not work from May 2004 to May 2007, as she studied for the exam, she supported herself with her own savings and financial support from her mother, and paid for the exam review course herself. Furthermore, even if the husband were entitled to an award based on the wife’s enhanced earning capacity, he never established the value of such enhanced earning capacity, through expert testimony (see e.g. Heydt-Benjamin v Heydt-Benjamin, 127 AD3d 814, 815 [2d Dept 2015]).

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying the husband an award of maintenance after citing the relevant *542 statutory factors and considering the parties’ pre-divorce standard of living (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]; Alexander v Alexander, 116 AD3d 472, 473 [1st Dept 2014], appeal dismissed 24 NY3d 1050 [2014]). In particular, the wife works part-time while caring for her child from a subsequent marriage, and although the husband has been unemployed for several years, he has a degree in engineering and was previously employed by numerous companies, and appears capable of supporting himself.

The husband’s remaining contentions lack any support in the record. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.3d 541, 19 N.Y.S.3d 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruo-mei-cai-v-victor-fai-lau-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack