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.
LISA M. GUY, PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT, v. ERIC E. GUY, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Defendant husband appeals from a judgment of divorce that, insofar as appealed from, confirmed in relevant part the report of the Matrimonial Referee (Referee) appointed to hear and report with respect to the issues of maintenance and equitable distribution. In the judgment, Supreme Court ordered that neither party shall pay spousal maintenance to the other and equitably distributed the marital debt. Contrary to defendant's contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in failing to award him maintenance. The Referee properly considered the factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(6)(a) in determining that an award of maintenance to defendant was not warranted (see Hartog v. Hartog, 85 N.Y.2d 36, 51; Sofien v. Noel, 60 AD3d 1387, 1387), and the court properly confirmed that part of the Referee's report. Although plaintiff earns more than defendant and although defendant pays child support, neither fact, by itself or in combination with the other, requires the court to award maintenance to defendant (see generally § 236[B][6][a] ).
Defendant further contends that the court erred in failing to allocate between the parties certain marital debt consisting of credit card balances in his name. Defendant, however, failed to submit evidence that a balance transfer to one credit card and the outstanding balances on two other credit cards reflected marital expenses (see Lopez v. Saldana, 309 A.D.2d 655, 656). The record therefore supports the Referee's finding, as confirmed by the court, that those amounts did not constitute marital debt to be allocated (see Cabeche v. Cabeche, 10 AD3d 441, 441; see also Greenwald v. Greenwald, 164 A.D.2d 706, 720–721, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 855).
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 13–00623
Decided: June 13, 2014
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)