Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; December 9, 1996; New York; State Appellate Court
The Supreme Court of Queens County, presided over by Joseph Modugno, J.H.O., ruled on December 19, 1994, granting a divorce to the parties involved. The court awarded the wife custody of their child, with the husband receiving visitation rights. Child support was set at $207.92 per week, while the wife's requests for additional expenses related to child care, summer camp, and nursery school were denied. Maintenance was granted at $150 per week for two years, along with a one-time award of $8,400 for the enhancement of the husband's professional earnings and $1,500 in attorney fees.
The decision was modified on appeal to require the husband to cover the cost of the wife's medical and dental insurance for two years, as well as all unreimbursed medical expenses during that time. The husband was also ordered to pay for 100% of the child’s summer camp, child care, and nursery school expenses for the same period, and thereafter 75% of these costs. The enhancement award for the husband’s professional earnings was increased to $66,042.60, payable within 60 days or in installments over five years. Attorney fees were increased to $7,500, with similar payment terms.
The court found sufficient evidence to determine maintenance and support levels despite previous omissions by the Judicial Hearing Officer. It took into account the husband's monthly net earnings of $3,961, his weekly expenses of $1,166, and the wife's expected earning potential of $1,666 per month after returning to work in two years. The court deemed the initial maintenance and support to adequately meet both parties' needs, particularly noting the husband’s role as the sole wage earner at trial.
Regarding the enhancement of the husband’s earnings, the court identified flaws in the calculations provided by the husband's expert. It ruled that loans taken for education prior to the marriage should not reduce the estimated future earnings enhancement. Additionally, only the last 36 months of the husband's extensive education, specifically related to his specialty training, should be considered for this enhancement.
The coverture fraction for the parties, married for 32 out of 36 months, is calculated at 88.89%. This results in enhanced earnings of $330,213 attributed to the marriage from an estimated total future earning enhancement of $371,485. The wife's contributions to the husband's residency and board certification were acknowledged, as she did not sacrifice her career and they had no children during the marriage. Consequently, the wife is awarded 20% of the husband’s enhanced earnings, raising her award from $8,400 to $66,042.60. The husband may fulfill this award as a lump sum or in annual installments of $13,208.52 over five years, starting 60 days after this decision.
Despite these modifications, the wife will still have significantly fewer resources than the husband; she is unemployed, has sole custody of their child, and possesses limited savings. Accordingly, her attorney’s fees award is increased from $1,500 to $7,500, payable within 60 days or in installments of $1,500 annually over five years. The court finds the wife's additional arguments unmeritorious. The trial court's decision regarding the division of joint accounts is upheld, and the husband is not required to return a car to the wife in working condition. The motion for leave to appeal is denied, while reargument is granted, leading to the vacating of a prior decision and the issuance of a new order. All parties concurred in the findings.
