Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Susan M. SAYLOR, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Kim E. SAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: September 29, 2006

PRESENT:  KEHOE, J.P., GORSKI, MARTOCHE, SMITH, AND PINE, JJ. Duke Law Firm, P.C., Lakeville (Susan K. Duke of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant. Sharon Kelly Sayers, Rochester, for Plaintiff-Respondent.

In this action for divorce, defendant appeals from a judgment that, insofar as pertinent to this appeal, awarded plaintiff maintenance of $950 per month for a period of 9 1/212 years or until plaintiff's remarriage or the death of either party, distributed certain marital assets and debt, and directed defendant to pay $6,750 toward plaintiff's counsel fees.   Contrary to defendant's contention, Supreme Court “properly set forth the factors it considered in determining the amount [and duration]” of the maintenance award (McBride-Head v. Head, 23 A.D.3d 1010, 1011, 804 N.Y.S.2d 170;  see Kelly v. Kelly, 19 A.D.3d 1104, 1106, 797 N.Y.S.2d 666, appeal dismissed 5 N.Y.3d 847, 805 N.Y.S.2d 547, 839 N.E.2d 901, rearg. denied and lv. dismissed in part and denied in part 6 N.Y.3d 803, 812 N.Y.S.2d 440, 845 N.E.2d 1270;  McAllister v. McAllister, 6 A.D.3d 1141, 775 N.Y.S.2d 655).   Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding maintenance to plaintiff in the amount and duration specified (see Booth v. Booth, 24 A.D.3d 1238, 807 N.Y.S.2d 259;  McBride-Head, 23 A.D.3d at 1011, 804 N.Y.S.2d 170;  Anderson v. Anderson, 286 A.D.2d 967, 969, 731 N.Y.S.2d 108).   The record establishes that the parties were married for 30 years, that defendant was the primary breadwinner throughout the marriage, that plaintiff stayed at home with the children or worked part-time for most of the marriage, thereby delaying her career prospects, and that there is a large disparity in the incomes of the parties.   Similarly, we conclude that the court adequately addressed the statutory factors bearing on its equitable distribution of certain marital assets (see Schiffmacher v. Schiffmacher, 21 A.D.3d 1386, 1387, 801 N.Y.S.2d 848;  Chadwick v. Chadwick, 256 A.D.2d 1211, 684 N.Y.S.2d 119;  see generally Prasinos v. Prasinos, 283 A.D.2d 913, 725 N.Y.S.2d 258), and the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering defendant to pay one half of plaintiff's credit card debt and in denying defendant's request to receive a credit for one half of a joint account liquidated by plaintiff to pay for the wedding of the parties' daughter (see McPheeters v. McPheeters, 284 A.D.2d 968, 726 N.Y.S.2d 530;  Chadwick, 256 A.D.2d at 1211, 684 N.Y.S.2d 119).

Finally, given the relative financial circumstances of the parties and the relative merits of their positions before and at trial, the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering defendant to pay $6,750 toward plaintiff's counsel fees (see Domestic Relations Law § 237[a];  DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879, 881, 524 N.Y.S.2d 176, 518 N.E.2d 1168;  Solomon v. Solomon, 282 A.D.2d 666, 723 N.Y.S.2d 709;  Mica v. Mica, 275 A.D.2d 765, 714 N.Y.S.2d 217).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.