Opinion
2014-06-13
Lisa M. GUY, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Eric E. GUY, Defendant–Appellant.
Justin S. White, Williamsville, for Defendant–Appellant. Law Offices of John P. Pieri, Buffalo (John P. Pieri of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.
Justin S. White, Williamsville, for Defendant–Appellant. Law Offices of John P. Pieri, Buffalo (John P. Pieri of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, and DeJOSEPH, JJ.
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, 623 N.Y.S.2d 537, 647 N.E.2d 749;Sofien v. Noel, 60 A.D.3d 1387, 1387, 874 N.Y.S.2d 839), 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, 765 N.Y.S.2d 793). 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 A.D.3d 441, 441, 780 N.Y.S.2d 909;see also Greenwald v. Greenwald, 164 A.D.2d 706, 720–721, 565 N.Y.S.2d 494,lv. denied78 N.Y.2d 855, 573 N.Y.S.2d 645, 578 N.E.2d 443).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.