From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Almeda v. Hopper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 8, 2003
2 A.D.3d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-06805.

Decided December 8, 2003.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dillon, J.), dated May 21, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, and upon decisions of the same court dated December 19, 2001, and February 13, 2002, inter alia, awarded custody of the parties' two sons to the defendant husband, awarded the defendant husband 100% of his retirement benefits, imputed an annual income of only $63,689.40 to the defendant husband for purposes of determining the award of child support, and denied her application for an award of maintenance.

Rosemary Almeda, appellant pro se.

Paul H. Kean, Law Guardian for the child.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the judgment as awarded custody of the parties' older son to the defendant is dismissed as academic; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

Any arguments that the plaintiff makes concerning custody of and visitation with the parties' older son are academic, as he has reached the age of majority ( see Belsky v. Belsky, 172 A.D.2d 576; Berk v. Berk, 170 A.D.2d 564, 565). Moreover, the court's decision to award custody of the younger son to the defendant has a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 174; Vinciguerra v. Vinciguerra, 294 A.D.2d 565, 566).

The court providently exercised its discretion in equitably distributing the marital assets ( see Sebag v. Sebag, 294 A.D.2d 560), and in denying the plaintiff's application for maintenance ( see Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][6][a][1]; Mica v. Mica, 275 A.D.2d 765, 766).

The court's decision to impute an annual income to the defendant of only $63,689.40 is supported by the record ( see Casey v. Casey, 289 A.D.2d 361, 362).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

PRUDENTI, P.J., ALTMAN, SMITH and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Almeda v. Hopper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 8, 2003
2 A.D.3d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Almeda v. Hopper

Case Details

Full title:ROSEMARY ALMEDA, appellant, v. MICHAEL HOPPER, respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 8, 2003

Citations

2 A.D.3d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
767 N.Y.S.2d 884

Citing Cases

Yilmaz v. Yilmaz

The defendant's arguments concerning the parties' oldest son are academic, as he has reached the age of…

Signorile v. Signorile

Considering, among other factors, the distribution of marital property, the duration of the marriage, the…