DEMARCO v. DEMARCO (2018)

DECISION & ORDER

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

The parties were married in 1992 and have two children.  In 2011, the plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief.  Around the time this action was commenced, the defendant vacated the marital residence, and she did not live in the marital residence during the pendency of the action.  Following a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court, inter alia, awarded the defendant 50% of the marital portion of the plaintiff's pension and annuity and a credit for marital funds used to pay the mortgage on the marital residence, and declined to award the plaintiff any portion of a car insurance payout to the defendant.  The plaintiff appeals.

“The trial court is vested with broad discretion in making an equitable distribution of marital property ․ and unless it can be shown that the court improvidently exercised that discretion, its determination should not be disturbed” (Gafycz v. Gafycz, 148 A.D.3d 679, 680, 48 N.Y.S.3d 464 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).  Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the defendant her proportionate share of the plaintiff's pension and annuity accounts pursuant to the formula established in Majauskas v. Majauskas, 61 N.Y.2d 481, 474 N.Y.S.2d 699, 463 N.E.2d 15.  The defendant met her burden of proving the value of the accounts (see Weidman v. Weidman, 162 A.D.3d 720, 724, 78 N.Y.S.3d 371; cf. Seckler–Roode v. Roode, 36 A.D.3d 889, 890, 830 N.Y.S.2d 211).  Moreover, given the defendant's economic and noneconomic contributions to the long-term marriage, the court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the defendant 50% of the marital portion of the accounts (see Fields v. Fields, 15 N.Y.3d 158, 162, 905 N.Y.S.2d 783, 931 N.E.2d 1039; Wagner v. Dunetz, 299 A.D.2d 347, 349, 749 N.Y.S.2d 545).  Additionally, the court providently applied the funds distributed from the annuity during the pendency of the litigation to the plaintiff's share of the annuity.  We agree with the court's determination that the defendant was entitled to a credit for her equitable share of the marital funds that were used to make mortgage payments on the marital residence, which is the plaintiff's separate property (see Davidman v. Davidman, 97 A.D.3d 627, 628, 948 N.Y.S.2d 639; Carney v. Carney, 202 A.D.2d 907, 908–909, 609 N.Y.S.2d 425).

We disagree with the defendant's contention that this appeal should be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff submitted an inadequate appendix, as we find the appendix to be adequate (see Pucci v. Trabulsy, 161 A.D.3d 1117, 1119, 77 N.Y.S.3d 694; cf. Swift v. Broadway Neon Sign Corp., 137 A.D.3d 893, 26 N.Y.S.3d 482).  We also decline the defendant's request to impose a sanction against the plaintiff or his counsel for bringing an allegedly frivolous appeal (see 22 NYCRR 130–1.1).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

CHAMBERS, J.P., AUSTIN, ROMAN and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.