Opinion
CA 02-01873
March 21, 2003.
Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County (Marshall, J.), entered November 30, 2001, which, inter alia, equitably distributed the marital property.
JAMES P. RENDA, BUFFALO, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
FIORELLA PALMER ZAKIA, BUFFALO (THOMAS ALLAN PALMER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., WISNER, SCUDDER, BURNS, AND GORSKI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.
Memorandum:
We reject the contention of defendant that Supreme Court improperly distributed as marital property funds he allegedly acquired following the commencement of the divorce action. Defendant did not adequately trace the source of those funds and therefore failed to rebut the presumption that those funds were marital property (see Corasanti v. Corasanti, 296 A.D.2d 831, 832; Haas v. Haas, 265 A.D.2d 887, 888). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court did not err in failing to consider the tax consequences of the distributive award. Defendant failed to present evidence to enable the court to calculate the dollar amount of the tax consequences (see Wadsworth v. Wadsworth, 219 A.D.2d 410, 415; Povosky v. Povosky, 124 A.D.2d 1068, 1069). The court did not abuse its discretion in its apportionment of fees for the services of the experts (see Tassone v. Tassone, 209 A.D.2d 859, 860) and the Law Guardian (see Pascarelli v. Pascarelli, 283 A.D.2d 472, lv dismissed 96 N.Y.2d 937, rearg denied 97 N.Y.2d 654), nor did the court abuse its discretion in directing defendant to pay a portion of plaintiff's counsel fees (see Zielinski v. Zielinski, 289 A.D.2d 1017, 1018). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court's distribution of the parties' assets is fair and equitable (see Lester v. Lester, 237 A.D.2d 872, 874). Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in directing defendant to pay 100% of the day care expenses for the children (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c] [6]; Greenfield v. Greenfield, 234 A.D.2d 60, 61).