GUHA v. GUHA (2009)

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Iannacci, J.), entered June 22, 2007, which, upon a decision of the same court dated March 23, 2007, made after a nonjury trial, inter alia, awarded him only 30% of the value of the marital residence, and only 5% of the value of the plaintiff's enhanced earning capacity, and failed to award him maintenance.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

 Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in awarding him only 30% of the value of the marital residence and 5% of the value of the plaintiff's enhanced earning capacity.  “Equitable distribution does not necessarily mean equal distribution” (Evans v. Evans, 57 A.D.3d 718, 719, 870 N.Y.S.2d 394;  see Groesbeck v. Groesbeck, 51 A.D.3d 722, 723, 858 N.Y.S.2d 707;  Falgoust v. Falgoust, 15 A.D.3d 612, 614, 790 N.Y.S.2d 532).  “Where only modest contributions are made by the nontitled spouse toward the other spouse's attainment of a degree or professional license, and the attainment is more directly the result of the titled spouse's own ability, tenacity, perseverance and hard work, it is appropriate for courts to limit the distributed amount of that enhanced earning capacity” (Higgins v. Higgins, 50 A.D.3d 852, 853, 857 N.Y.S.2d 171, quoting Farrell v. Cleary-Farrell, 306 A.D.2d 597, 599-600, 761 N.Y.S.2d 357).

 Here, the evidence at trial established that the defendant made minimal financial contributions to the marriage (see Evans v. Evans, 57 A.D.3d at 719, 870 N.Y.S.2d 394;  Arrigo v. Arrigo, 38 A.D.3d 807, 834 N.Y.S.2d 534;  Sade v. Sade, 251 A.D.2d 646, 647, 675 N.Y.S.2d 119).   The defendant, moreover, failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that he made substantial contributions to the plaintiff's attainment of her license to practice medicine in the United States (see Higgins v. Higgins, 50 A.D.3d at 853, 857 N.Y.S.2d 171;  Brough v. Brough, 285 A.D.2d 913, 914, 727 N.Y.S.2d 555;  Sade v. Sade, 251 A.D.2d at 647, 675 N.Y.S.2d 119).   The record reflects that the plaintiff completed medical school in India prior to meeting the defendant and that she passed the United States Medical Licensing Examination based on her own ability, tenacity, perseverance, and hard work (see Gandhi v. Gandhi, 283 A.D.2d 782, 784-785, 724 N.Y.S.2d 541).   Thus, the Supreme Court, after properly considering the relevant statutory factors (see Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][5];  Arrigo v. Arrigo, 38 A.D.3d 807, 834 N.Y.S.2d 534;  Falgoust v. Falgoust, 15 A.D.3d at 614, 790 N.Y.S.2d 532), providently exercised its discretion in distributing the marital estate.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly declined to award him maintenance (see Arrigo v. Arrigo, 38 A.D.3d at 808, 834 N.Y.S.2d 534;  Gainey v. Gainey, 303 A.D.2d 628, 630-631, 756 N.Y.S.2d 647).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.