From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Soyer v. Perricone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 11, 1995
222 A.D.2d 496 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

December 11, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.).


Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the provision thereof which directs that the plaintiff shall be charged with "escrow payments for real estate taxes, water and sewer rates, and fire insurance premiums made by defendant to the Queens County Savings Bank since March 30, 1973", the fourth decretal paragraph thereof, charging the plaintiff with one-half the reasonable expenses paid by the defendant to preserve the premises, and the provision thereof directing the Referee to make findings with respect to those charges, are deleted, and a provision is substituted therefor that the plaintiff shall be charged with only interest and principal paid by the defendant to Queens County Savings Bank since March 30, 1973, on account of the mortgage held by that bank.

The parties' judgment of divorce which awarded the defendant exclusive possession of the marital residence provided that, upon the sale of the marital residence, the defendant "will be reimbursed * * * for any amortization payments made by her subsequent to March 30, 1973". We agree with the plaintiff that "amortization payments" may include mortgage payments for principal and interest to the Queens County Savings Bank, but not escrow payments for real estate taxes, water and sewer charges and fire insurance premiums (see, Black's Law Dictionary 83 [6th ed 1990]; St. John v St. John, 161 A.D.2d 572). Further, since the divorce judgment was silent as to other payments to preserve the property, including repair costs, the party occupying the premises must be charged with those expenses (see, Borock v Fray, 220 A.D.2d 637; Martin v Martin, 82 A.D.2d 431).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are not properly before us (see, Dingle v Pergament Home Ctrs., 141 A.D.2d 798), and, in any event, are without merit (see, Borock v Fray, supra; Oliva v Oliva, 136 A.D.2d 611; see generally, Pitson v Sellers, 206 A.D.2d 575). Balletta, J.P., Thompson, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Soyer v. Perricone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 11, 1995
222 A.D.2d 496 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Soyer v. Perricone

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD SOYER, Appellant, v. CATHERINE S. PERRICONE, Respondent

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

Date published: Dec 11, 1995

Citations

222 A.D.2d 496 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
635 N.Y.S.2d 253

Citing Cases

Soyer v. Perricone

Decided June 5, 1996 Appeal from (2d Dept: 222 A.D.2d 496) FINALITY OF JUDGMENTS AND…

Field v. Kaliszewski

Both the judgment of divorce and the stipulation of settlement were silent with respect to the parties'…