From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ravishankar v. Apontes

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Dec 26, 2018
167 A.D.3d 1053 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

2015–10890 Index No. 202155/10

12-26-2018

Shreyas RAVISHANKAR, Appellant, v. Pasha APONTES, Respondent.

Law Offices of Russell I. Marnell, P.C., East Meadow, NY, for appellant. Pasha Apontes, Williston Park, NY, respondent pro se.


Law Offices of Russell I. Marnell, P.C., East Meadow, NY, for appellant.

Pasha Apontes, Williston Park, NY, respondent pro se.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SHERI S. ROMAN, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Geoffrey J. O'Connell, J.H.O.), dated August 10, 2015. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, upon a decision and an amended decision of the same court dated January 16, 2014, and April 2, 2015, respectively, made after a nonjury trial, inter alia, awarded the defendant a 15% share of the plaintiff's enhanced earning capacity and awarded the defendant counsel fees in the sum of $20,000.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the defendant a 15% share of the plaintiff's enhanced earning capacity, based upon the defendant's contributions to the marital household, including caring for the parties' children while the plaintiff was in medical school (see Scaramucci v. Scaramucci, 140 A.D.3d 848, 33 N.Y.S.3d 377 ; Kuznetsov v. Kuznetsova, 79 A.D.3d 974, 913 N.Y.S.2d 325 ; Schwartz v. Schwartz, 67 A.D.3d 989, 890 N.Y.S.2d 71 ; Guha v. Guha, 61 A.D.3d 634, 877 N.Y.S.2d 151 ).

The Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in awarding the defendant counsel fees in the sum of $20,000 (see Domestic Relations Law § 237[a] ). The court properly considered the relevant financial circumstances of the parties, and the particular circumstances of the case (see Bagielto v. Kolsch, 148 A.D.3d 766, 48 N.Y.S.3d 741 ).

The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.

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


Summaries of

Ravishankar v. Apontes

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Dec 26, 2018
167 A.D.3d 1053 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

Ravishankar v. Apontes

Case Details

Full title:Shreyas Ravishankar, appellant, v. Pasha Apontes, respondent.

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Dec 26, 2018

Citations

167 A.D.3d 1053 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
167 A.D.3d 1053
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 8965