Summary
In Hougie v Hougie (261 AD2d 161, 162), the same court held that defendant's enhanced earning capacity as an investment banker was subject to equitable distribution, regardless of whether or not such a career requires a license, and that the Series 7 securities license, which is necessary to trade securities in the United States, that he obtained during the marriage should be taken into account in determining his enhanced earning capacity.
Summary of this case from Purygin v. PuryginaOpinion
May 6, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.).
Preliminarily we note that whether a particular marital asset, such as the enhanced earning capacity attributable to a particular career, is subject to equitable distribution is an issue that can be decided prior to trial ( see, e.g., Elkus v. Elkus, 169 A.D.2d 134, lv dismissed 79 N.Y.2d 851; West v. West, 213 A.D.2d 1025, lv dismissed 86 N.Y.2d 885). On the merits, defendant's enhanced earning capacity as an investment banker is subject to equitable distribution regardless of whether or not such a career requires a license ( see, Elkus v. Elkus, supra; but see, West v. West, supra), and the amount of such enhancement was therefore properly determined without regard to the existence of any such license. However, on appeal, in his reply brief, defendant for the first time acknowledges that during the marriage he obtained a Series 7 securities license, which is necessary to trade securities in the United States, and such license should also be taken into account in determining his enhanced earning capacity ( see, McSparron v. McSparron, 87 N.Y.2d 275, 285-286).
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.