From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schlachet v. Schlachet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 24, 1991
176 A.D.2d 198 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

September 24, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.).


The parties, who have one child, were married in 1977 and separated in 1985. Defendant, age 60, is a practicing psychologist. Plaintiff, age 46, is a licensed social worker. Plaintiff substantially reduced her practice at the time of the birth of the parties' child to become the primary caretaker and homemaker, as well as to assist defendant in his practice by networking and referrals. The court determined the value of the marital appreciation of defendant's practice during the marriage, awarding plaintiff 50% of such value, and directed defendant to pay plaintiff child support in the amount of $1,400 per month plus 70% of the costs of the child's medical insurance, unreimbursed medical expenses, private school tuition and child care, awarded plaintiff maintenance of $400 per month for four years, and directed defendant to pay $25,000 of plaintiff's counsel fees.

Contrary to defendant's contentions, the court properly relied upon plaintiff's expert in valuing defendant's practice by applying a capitalization rate of 3 to the weighted average excess earnings (see, Nehorayoff v. Nehorayoff, 108 Misc.2d 311, 316-321). Further, plaintiff was entitled to 50% of the appreciation in the practice, based upon her contribution as parent and homemaker, and the sacrifices made in her career in favor of the advancement of that of defendant (see, Morrissey v Morrissey, 153 A.D.2d 609). The court also accurately determined the income of the parties, based upon the evidence submitted, and did not err in discounting defendant's disingenuous claim that his income had recently plummeted. Plaintiff was entitled to maintenance for four years to allow her to develop her practice (see, Warshaw v. Warshaw, 169 A.D.2d 408). The court did not err in making open-ended directions for child care under the circumstances herein (see, Pulitzer v. Pulitzer, 134 A.D.2d 84, 88). We find the remaining arguments raised similarly unpersuasive.

Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin, Ross and Asch, JJ.


Summaries of

Schlachet v. Schlachet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 24, 1991
176 A.D.2d 198 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Schlachet v. Schlachet

Case Details

Full title:JOYCE SCHLACHET, Respondent-Appellant, v. PETER SCHLACHET…

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

Date published: Sep 24, 1991

Citations

176 A.D.2d 198 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
574 N.Y.S.2d 320

Citing Cases

Wilson v. Wilson

and of the respective parties". Here, although the former wife has prior work experience and the ability to…

Lamasa v. Bachman

Cf., Dooknah v. Thompson, 249 AD2d 260, 670 N.Y.S.2d 919 (2nd Dept., 1998). In addition, the cost of medical…