Toffler v. Toffler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Toffler v. Toffler

252 A.D.2d 580, 675 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8651

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

DecidedJuly 27, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 580 (Toffler v. Toffler) 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

Toffler v. Toffler, 252 A.D.2d 580, 675 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8651 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Green, J.H.O.), dated October 30, 1997, which, inter alia, after a nonjury trial, did not require the defendant to pay a share of the parties’ marital debt and limited the defendant’s potential future obligation to repay certain educational loans guaranteed on behalf of her children to a deduction from future maintenance payments, and the defendant wife cross-appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the same judgment as awarded her maintenance only in the amount of $125 per week for a period of two and one-half years.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Considering the relevant factors governing equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d]), including the disparity between the parties’ respective incomes and education, the court properly declined to require the defendant to pay a share of the marital debt, which includes the outstanding balances on their joint credit cards (see, Prince v Prince, 247 AD2d 457; Gelb v Brown, 163 AD2d 189).

Furthermore, the court’s award of maintenance in the sum of $125 per week for a two-and-one-half-year period adequately provides the defendant with an opportunity to complete her college degree and become self-supporting (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481; Granade-Bastuck v Bastuck, 249 AD2d 444).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Krausman and Goldstein, 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 plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Green, J.H.O.), dated October 30, 1997, which, inter alia, after a nonjury trial, did not require the defendant to pay a share of the parties’ marital debt and limited the defendant’s potential future obligation to repay certain educational loans guaranteed on behalf of her children to a deduction from future maintenance payments, and the defendant wife cross-appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the same judgment as awarded her maintenance only in the amount of $125 per week for a period of two and one-half years.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Considering the relevant factors governing equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d]), including the disparity between the parties’ respective incomes and education, the court properly declined to require the defendant to pay a share of the marital debt, which includes the outstanding balances on their joint credit cards (see, Prince v Prince, 247 AD2d 457; Gelb v Brown, 163 AD2d 189).

Furthermore, the court’s award of maintenance in the sum of $125 per week for a two-and-one-half-year period adequately provides the defendant with an opportunity to complete her college degree and become self-supporting (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481; Granade-Bastuck v Bastuck, 249 AD2d 444).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 580, 675 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toffler-v-toffler-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack