Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Lieberman v. Lieberman
Citations: 142 A.D.3d 1144; 38 N.Y.S.3d 81Docket: 2015-01953
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; September 28, 2016; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In Lieberman v. Lieberman, the Appellate Division, Second Department modified a January 9, 2015 judgment from the Supreme Court of Kings County, which had awarded Adam Lieberman sole legal and physical custody of the children. The court imputed an annual income of $25,000 to Hannah Lieberman and initially assigned Adam sole responsibility for the marital credit card debt and all children's unreimbursed medical expenses, private school tuition, tutors, after-school activities, and summer camp costs. The appellate decision altered the financial responsibilities, mandating that Adam is responsible for 80% of the children's unreimbursed medical expenses, summer camp, and after-school activities, while Hannah is responsible for the remaining 20%. The court emphasized that custody decisions must prioritize the children's best interests, considering multiple factors, including the quality of the home environment, parental guidance, financial status, and the potential impact on the children's relationship with both parents. The findings of the lower court were upheld due to deference granted to the trial court's credibility assessments, which were informed by witness testimonies, expert recommendations, and in-camera interviews with the children. The decision affirmed the award of sole custody to Adam with liberal visitation rights for Hannah. The court's admission of the defendant's diary, despite the plaintiff's objection, and reliance on inadmissible hearsay by the court-appointed forensic expert were deemed errors, but these did not prejudice the outcome. The expert's opinion was primarily based on direct interviews, providing a solid basis for the custody decision, which was upheld on appeal. The Supreme Court correctly imputed $25,000 in annual income to the plaintiff, considering the income disparity and overall value of the marital estate. The court's directive that the defendant bear sole responsibility for marital credit card debt and children's educational expenses was justified. However, the court incorrectly assigned the defendant sole responsibility for unreimbursed medical expenses, summer camp, and after-school activities; the plaintiff should contribute 20% of these costs based on her income share.