Opinion
June 23, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.).
Under the circumstances of this case, the IAS Court did not err by imputing additional income to defendant husband based upon purported gifts from his father and upon monies funnelled to defendant through various companies purportedly owned by his father ( see, Isaacs v. Isaacs, 246 A.D.2d 428; Lapkin v. Lapkin, 208 A.D.2d 474; Warshaw v. Warshaw, 169 A.D.2d 408). Defendant's evident lack of candor with respect to the sources and nature of his actual income and perquisites justified an adverse inference against him with respect to his financial condition ( 22 NYCRR 202.16 [k] [5] [i]; Glass v. Glass, 233 A.D.2d 274). Moreover, plaintiff's showing with respect to the extraordinarily lavish marital lifestyle provided a basis for the court to conclude that the husbands actual income and financial resources were substantially greater than he reported ( Hoenig v. Hoenig, 245 A.D.2d 262; Kesten v. Kesten, 234 A.D.2d 427).
We modify only to afford plaintiff disclosure respecting the extent of defendant's capacity to meet spousal maintenance obligations. The Swiss post-nuptial agreement is silent on the issue of spousal support, and, therefore, does not bar financial disclosure with respect to issues pertinent to plaintiff wife's right to spousal maintenance ( cf., Oberstein v. Oberstein, 93 A.D.2d 374).
We have considered the parties' remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Lerner, P. J., Rubin, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.