Mann v. MannMann v. Mann
—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and in the exercise of discretion and as modified affirmed with costs to defendant and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Mem
The record establishes that defendant earns less than $13,000 a year working part time as a nurse in an allergist’s office and that, for most of the parties’ 28-year marriage, defendant forsook career and educational opportunities in order to assume the role of homemaker and primary caretaker of the children. Defendant is pursuing her master’s degree in nursing, which she expects to obtain in the year 2001. Although the court found that plaintiff has income of about $96,000 per year as a self-employed consultant, the record suggests that his true income is considerably greater. He admits paying his girlfriend nearly $320,000 in the 2xh years preceding the hearing, and further admits transferring his firm’s interests in various lucrative contracts to a corporation formed by his girlfriend. Considering all of the circumstances, particularly the length of the marriage, the marital lifestyle, the disparity in the parties’ incomes, defendant’s sacrifice of career and educational opportunities during the marriage and defendant’s current educational needs, we modify the court’s award of maintenance by directing plaintiff to pay defendant maintenance of $3,500 per month for a period of 65 months beginning January 1, 1996 (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a] [l]-[5]; Lampard v Lampard,
We also conclude that the court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s request that plaintiff be ordered to contribute to defendant’s counsel fees. Although the court noted the “limited liquid assets available to the respective parties,” it is more significant that plaintiffs business generates net income for plaintiff of at least $96,000 per year and probably much more. Given his income, plaintiff certainly possesses the resources to pay a portion of defendant’s counsel fees. The record establishes that defendant has incurred counsel fees of $37,688.96 in defending the divorce action, has paid only
We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. We modify the judgment by directing plaintiff to pay maintenance of $3,500 per month for a period of 65 months beginning January 1, 1996 and by directing plaintiff to pay defendant’s counsel fees in the amount to be determined by Supreme Court upon remittal. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Cornelius, J.— Maintenance.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ.