From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scopelliti v. Scopelliti

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 27, 2011
90 A.D.3d 1016 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-12-27

Joseph C. SCOPELLITI, appellant, v. Maria C. SCOPELLITI, respondent.

Carl F. Lodes, Carmel, N.Y., for appellant. Patricia T. Bisesto, White Plains, N.Y., for respondent.


Carl F. Lodes, Carmel, N.Y., for appellant. Patricia T. Bisesto, White Plains, N.Y., for respondent.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff former husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from (1) so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Jamieson, J.), entered May 19, 2010, as, after a nonjury trial, awarded the defendant former wife 50% of the proceeds from the sale of the marital residence, which it determined to be marital property, awarded child support in the sum of $1,417 per month until April 12, 2011, when the parties' daughter reached the age of 21 years, directed the plaintiff to pay 78% of the daughter's college expenses, awarded the defendant maintenance in the sum of $2,200 per month for a period of five years from March 1, 2010, and awarded the defendant the sum of $80,000 in counsel fees, $63,000 payable to her former attorney Kitson & Kitson, and $17,000 payable to her current attorney, Patricia T. Bisesto, and (2) stated portions of an order of the same court (Connolly, J.), entered December 30, 2010, which, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to compel him to pay $7,258.68 toward his daughter's spring 2010 college expenses, and $6,009.12 toward his daughter's fall 2010 college expenses.

ORDERED that the judgment and the order are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving that the marital residence was his separate property ( see Frey v. Frey, 68 A.D.3d 1052, 1053, 892 N.Y.S.2d 159; Embury v. Embury, 49 A.D.3d 802, 804, 854 N.Y.S.2d 502). Moreover, the Supreme Court's imputation of income to the plaintiff was proper ( see Duffy v. Duffy, 84 A.D.3d 1151, 1152, 924 N.Y.S.2d 449; Wesche v. Wesche, 77 A.D.3d 921, 923, 909 N.Y.S.2d 764; Fabrikant v. Fabrikant, 62 A.D.3d 585, 586, 879 N.Y.S.2d 431).

We further find that, under the circumstances of this case, the award of counsel fees to the defendant was a provident exercise of discretion ( see Levy v. Levy, 289 A.D.2d 379, 734 N.Y.S.2d 247; Cooper v. Cooper, 32 A.D.3d 376, 377, 818 N.Y.S.2d 778; see also Frankel v. Frankel, 2 N.Y.3d 601, 781 N.Y.S.2d 59, 814 N.E.2d 37).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit, or not properly before this Court.

SKELOS, J.P., HALL, LOTT and COHEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Scopelliti v. Scopelliti

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 27, 2011
90 A.D.3d 1016 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Scopelliti v. Scopelliti

Case Details

Full title:Joseph C. SCOPELLITI, appellant, v. Maria C. SCOPELLITI, respondent.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 27, 2011

Citations

90 A.D.3d 1016 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
934 N.Y.S.2d 849
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 9616

Citing Cases

Mojdeh M. v. Jamshid A.

00 each month from his sister. A pattern of substantial gifts to the husband from his sister shall be imputed…