From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Levine v. Levine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 19, 1990
167 A.D.2d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

November 19, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Zelman, J.).


Ordered that the appeal and the cross appeal from the judgment dated June 22, 1988, are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that judgment was superseded by the resettled judgment dated November 2, 1988; and it is further,

Ordered that the resettled judgment dated November 2, 1988, is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion, (1) by deleting the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth decretal paragraphs thereof in their entirety, and (2) by deleting the following words from the seventh decretal paragraph thereof: "and said defendant is directed to pay the cost of all medical, dental, hospitalization, and psychiatric expenses for the minor children herein not covered by insurance and excluded as a deductible from said insurance"; as so modified, the resettled judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith; and it is further,

Ordered that in the interim the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth decretal paragraphs of the judgment dated November 2, 1988, shall remain in full force and effect, with the exception of the provision in the sixth decretal paragraph directing the husband to pay "the cost of air conditioning and garage"; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated November 23, 1988, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The husband contends that the Supreme Court erred in determining the matter of custody without first conducting a full hearing on this matter. We agree. The custody issue was never developed at trial. The court stated its intention to acquire and consult forensic reports as a foundation for its custody and visitation determination, but then failed to do so. It then awarded custody to the wife, giving no explanation for doing so. The record does not reflect any grounds for this ruling, and the court gave none. Accordingly, the custody determination lacks a sound and substantial basis, and we reverse it and remit the matter for a de novo determination.

The court also erred in failing to set an expiration date in regard to the husband's obligation to provide the wife with maintenance and to pay for her rent expenses. Although an award of unlimited duration may be warranted where, for example, the payee spouse's health prevents her from being gainfully employed (cf., Foy v. Foy, 121 A.D.2d 501), such is not the case here. Indeed, the wife, who was 40 years old at the time of the trial, described her health as "good" and testified that she expected to be able to enter the job market in approximately two years' time. Moreover, the court failed to specify the statutory factors that it considered in making its determination with respect to maintenance and rent expenses (see, Brundage v. Brundage, 100 A.D.2d 887).

We also note that the court improperly granted the wife's motion to resettle the original judgment of divorce by adding open-ended provisions directing the husband to pay certain "rent-related expenses", e.g., garage and air conditioning fees, not referred to in the initial judgment, as well as the cost of all medical, dental, hospitalization and psychiatric expenses incurred by the minor children which were not covered by his insurance and excluded as a deductible from the insurance (see, Waterman v. Waterman, 160 A.D.2d 865; Matter of Dapolito v. Dapolito, 150 A.D.2d 375; Scheer v. Scheer, 130 A.D.2d 479).

We additionally find that the court properly exercised its discretion pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237 in awarding appellate counsel fees to the wife.

Finally, in view of the facts that the marital assets were depleted before the wife commenced the instant action for divorce and that there was no evidence that the husband ever secreted the assets from the wife, the court properly denied the wife equitable distribution in the form of a money judgment against the husband (see, Seeley v. Seeley, 135 A.D.2d 703). Kunzeman, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Levine v. Levine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 19, 1990
167 A.D.2d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Levine v. Levine

Case Details

Full title:KAREN LEVINE, Respondent-Appellant, v. NEIL LEVINE, Appellant-Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 19, 1990

Citations

167 A.D.2d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
562 N.Y.S.2d 132

Citing Cases

Nolfo v. Nolfo

Such payments are in the nature of improper, open-ended obligations. However, the wife is not precluded from…

Matter of Millay v. Millay

Although the Family Court in this case made a determination about the best interests of the child, it is…