Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
MELISSA MANISCALCO, PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT, v. PHILIP MANISCALCO, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by reducing the duration of maintenance to four years from April 3, 2012 and deleting from the third ordering paragraph of the order granted June 25, 2012 that is incorporated therein the language “any property, including but not limited to cash accounts, bank accounts, stocks, mutual funds” and “M & T bank accounts” and as modified the judgment is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from an order entered prior to the judgment of divorce and, in appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from the judgment of divorce. We note at the outset that appeal No. 1 must be dismissed inasmuch as the order in that appeal is subsumed in the final judgment of divorce (see Rooney v. Rooney [appeal No. 3], 92 AD3d 1294, 1295, lv denied 19 NY3d 810; see also Hughes v. Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, 140 A.D.2d 988, 988). We affirm the judgment in appeal No. 2 in all but two respects. First, we conclude that the maintenance award is excessive. Based on the statutory factors (see Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][6][a]; see also Hartog v. Hartog, 85 N.Y.2d 36, 51), and under the circumstances of this case, we modify the judgment by reducing the duration of maintenance to four years from April 3, 2012, i.e., the date of the Matrimonial Referee's decision (see generally Smith v. Smith, 79 AD3d 1643, 1644; Burroughs v. Burroughs, 269 A.D.2d 765, 765). Second, we conclude that Supreme Court abused its discretion in sequestering defendant's cash, bank accounts, stocks and mutual funds (cf. Brinckerhoff v. Brinckerhoff, 53 AD3d 592, 593; Adler v. Adler, 203 A.D.2d 81, 81). We thus further modify the judgment accordingly.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CA 12–01238
Decided: September 27, 2013
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)