KATHERINE HARTOG, APPELLANT, v. ALBERT HARTOG, RESPONDENT.
85 N.Y.2d 36, 647 N.E.2d 749, 623 N.Y.S.2d 527 (1995).
February 14, 1995
1 No. 24 (1995 NY Int. 023)
Decided February 14, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Stanley Plesent, for Appellant.
Herman Harris Tarnow, for Respondent.
Women's Bar Association of the State of New York, amicus curiae.
BELLACOSA, J.:
This equitable distribution case, reflecting its unique
characteristics of the economic partnership aspect of a 23-year
marriage relationship, presents a multifaceted puzzle of issues. The
solutions lie in the evidence adduced, in the statutory framework,
language and policies, and in their discernment, application and
harmonization in the respective levels of judicial review and
authority.
I.
Plaintiff-wife appeals, pursuant to leave granted by this Court, from
an order of the Appellate Division, which modified a judgment of
Supreme Court, New York County, dissolving the parties' marriage and
distributing property. The wife was granted a divorce on abandonment
grounds. Afterwards, a trial was held to determine her maintenance and
equitable distribution rights. Both parties appealed conflicting
aspects to the Appellate Division. The wife now specifies numerous
dissatisfactions about parts of the Appellate Division ruling.
She seeks relief from the Appellate Division determinations (1) that
the appreciation in value of the husband's separate property
businesses was not marital property; (2) that his bonus, earned prior
to but paid after commencement of marital proceedings, was not marital
property; (3) that the trial court had no authority to order the
husband to obtain life insurance for her benefit to secure maintenance
payments; (4) that the trial court had no authority to impose a lien
on the husband's estate in the event of a shortfall in the ordered
life insurance; (5) that maintenance of five-year duration was
SNIPPETS:
This equitable distribution case, reflecting its unique characteristics of the economic
The solutions lie in the evidence adduced, in the statutory framework, language and policies,
Plaintiff-wife appeals, pursuant to leave granted by this Court, from an order of the
a trial was held to determine her maintenance and equitable distribution rights.
She seeks relief from the Appellate Division determinations that the appreciation in value of
ent of a shortfall in the ordered life insurance; that maintenance of five-year duration was
A lead issue for us to decide is whether the husband's limited involvement during the
Further, we hold that by not considering the pre-divorce standard of living, the Appellate
On the other hand, while courts have statutory authority to order a spouse to maintain life
we conclude that the Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion by considering the tax
The wife asserts that because the husband had some active involvement in Trading and in
The wife argues that this is contrary to legislative intent, which meant for the term
In effect, the husband urges that absent a showing by the wife of a definitive and direct
We conclude that requiring a non-titled spouse to produce a substantial, almost quantifiable,
Thus, we agree with the wife's argument and the Supreme Court's resolution of this issue
When a non-titled spouse's claim to appreciation in the other spouse's separate property is
Applying Price's nuanced principles to this case, we hold that the weight of the adduced
We must realistically come to grips with the fact that when the titled spouse has only
This would allow the titled spouse a windfall retention and, contrary to legislative intent,
|
