From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lilikakis v. Lilikakis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 8, 2003
308 A.D.2d 435 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-02679

Argued June 9, 2003.

September 8, 2003.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Garson, J.), dated January 29, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, imputed income to him for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation, awarded the defendant wife maintenance in the sum of $300 per week for a period of one year, and granted the defendant's application for an award of an attorney's fee, and the defendant wife cross-appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the same judgment as awarded her only $185 per week in child support, and only $300 per week in maintenance for a period of one year.

Coffinas Lusthaus, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Maria Coffinas of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Leshanski O'Sullivan, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Donald O'Sullivan of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the husband's contention, the Supreme Court properly imputed income to him ( see Rohrs v. Rohrs, 297 A.D.2d 317). "A court is not bound by a party's account of his or her own finances, and where a party's account is not believable, the court is justified in finding a true or potential income higher than that claimed" ( Matter of Thomas v. DeFalco, 270 A.D.2d 277, 278; see also Rohrs v. Rohrs, supra). Further, the award of an attorney's fee to the wife was proper (see Merzon v. Merzon, 210 A.D.2d 462).

Contrary to the wife's contention, the amount and the duration of the award of maintenance were proper ( see DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879; Calvaruso v. Calvaruso, 276 A.D.2d 578; Morrissey v. Morrissey, 259 A.D.2d 472).

The parties' remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, LUCIANO and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lilikakis v. Lilikakis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 8, 2003
308 A.D.2d 435 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Lilikakis v. Lilikakis

Case Details

Full title:ELEFERIOS LILIKAKIS, appellant-respondent, v. HELEN LILIKAKIS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 8, 2003

Citations

308 A.D.2d 435 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
764 N.Y.S.2d 206

Citing Cases

Wesche v. Wesche

A court need not rely upon a party's own account of his or her finances, but may impute income based upon the…

Weitzner v. Weitzner

hown that the marital lifestyle was such that, under the circumstances, there was a basis for the court to…