Signorile v. Signorile, 102 A.D.3d 949

102 A.D.3d 949

N.Y. App. Div.

2013

Henry start by extracting the metadata and initial case information for “Carol A. Signorile v. William Signorile.” Case Name: Carol A. Signorile, Appellant-Respondent, v. William Signorile, Respondent-Appellant. Citation: 958 N.Y.S.2d 476 Short Name: Signorile v. Signorile Court: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department (Inferred from judges listed: Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ. and Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Hall, JJ. are AD2 judges). Docket: Not explicitly stated with a “No.” prefix, but the page shows a 2011 judgment from Nassau County. Wait, looking at the image, there are two opinions. The first one starts on page 949 but is a partial opinion (it starts mid-stream after a block of text). The second one starts on page 949: “Carol A. Signorile, Appellant-Respondent, v William Signorile, Respondent-Appellant. [958 NYS2d 476]“. The instructions say: “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” So I will skip the partial content at the top of page 949 and start with Signorile v. Signorile. Page 949: Carol A. Signorile, Appellant-Respondent, v William Signorile, Respondent-Appellant. [958 NYS2d 476] Case Info: ShortName: Signorile v. Signorile Docket: [None provided in the header, usually 2011-01783 or similar, but I will omit if not found. The OCR shows [958 NYS2d 476] as the reporter citation.] Court: N.Y. App. Div. (Second Department based on judges). Date: Not provided in the caption, but the text mentions a judgment entered January 24, 2011. The appellate decision date isn‘t explicitly on these pages, but I‘ll use what‘s available. Actually, looking at the layout, this is a volume of the Official Reports. Usually, the date is at the top of the page, but here it‘s blocked out. I will use the date from the text if I have to, or omit the date attribute if not present in the header/caption area. Wait, I see the judges’ names at the end of the sections. Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur (for the first case). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur (for Signorile). Let‘s start. Metadata for Signorile v. Signorile: Case Name: Carol A. Signorile, Appellant-Respondent, v William Signorile, Respondent-Appellant. Citation: 958 N.Y.S.2d 476 Body: In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief... The OCR for page 1 is slightly messed up (“ap peals” “Janu ary“). I will fix the hyphenation. Page 950: Ordered that the judgment is affirmed... The cross appeal must be dismissed as abandoned (see Sirma v Beach, 59 AD3d 611...) Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [d] [2] -> Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [d] [2] Banking Law § 675 [b] -> Banking Law § 675 [b] Page 951: Ends with “Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.” Then a new case starts: “Farruh Soibov...“. I will stop at the end of Signorile. Refining metadata for Signorile: Court: N.Y. App. Div. Citation: 958 N.Y.S.2d 476 (Official cite is likely different, e.g. 102 AD3d 949, but 958 NYS2d 476 is the one given). Wait, the top of page 949 shows the end of a case. Then the Signorile caption. I will start with Signorile. Page markers: Page 949 starts. Signorile caption is on 949. Page 950 starts. Page 951 starts. Citations: Sirma v Beach, 59 AD3d 611 -> (Note: NY style often uses brackets for dates and omits dots in case names in this specific reporter style, but I should use Bluebook abbreviations for attributes and preserve inner text). Let‘s process the content. Page 949 text for Signorile: “Carol A. Signorile, Appellant-Respondent, v William Signorile, Respondent-Appellant. [958 NYS2d 476] In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (St. George, J.), entered January 24, 2011, as, upon a decision of the same court dated June 21, 2010, made after a nonjury trial, awarded the defendant 90% of a certain personal injury award as his separate property, denied her request for maintenance, imputed income to her, and directed her to pay the sum of $144.25 per week in child support and the sum of $9,819.38 in child support arrears, and the defendant cross-appeals from the same judgment. Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,” Page 950 text: “Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further, Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant. The cross appeal must be dismissed as abandoned (see Sirma v Beach, 59 AD3d 611, 614 [2009]; Ellner v Schwed, 48 AD3d 739, 740 [2008]; Matter of Goldweber & Hershkowitz v Digsby, 32 AD3d 853, 854 [2006]), as the brief filed by the defendant does not seek reversal or modification of any portion of the judgment. The Supreme Court correctly concluded that 90% of a certain personal injury award was the defendant’s separate property, even though he placed those funds in an account titled jointly with the plaintiff. The proceeds of an action to recover damages for personal injuries are the separate property of the injured spouse (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [d] [2]; Chamberlain v Chamberlain, 24 AD3d 589 [2005]; Gundlach v Gundlach, 223 AD2d 942 [1996]). When spouses hold property in a joint account, however, a rebuttable presumption arises that both have an undivided one-half interest in it (see Banking Law § 675 [b]; Chamberlain v Chamberlain, 24 AD3d at 593; Tayar v Tayar, 208 AD2d 609, 610 [1994]). Thus, by depositing the proceeds of his personal injury lawsuit in an account titled jointly with the plaintiff, the defendant created the presumption that the funds were marital (see Lagnena v Lagnena, 215 AD2d 445, 446 [1995]; Di Nardo v Di Nardo, 144 AD2d 906 [1988]). This presumption may be overcome, however, by evidence that the account was titled jointly as a matter of convenience, without the intention of creating a beneficial interest, and that the funds in the account originated solely as separate property of the spouse who claims the separate interest (see Chamberlain v Chamberlain, 24 AD3d at 593; Wade v Steinfeld, 15 AD3d 390, 391 [2005]; Giuffre v Giuffre, 204 AD2d 684, 685 [1994]). Here, the defendant overcame the presumption that he intended to commingle his funds by establishing that he deposited them in the parties’ joint account for only a few days, and then removed the funds and placed them into an account in his name only (see Banking Law § 675 [b]; Wade v Steinfeld, 15 AD3d at 391; McGarrity v McGarrity, 211 AD2d 669, 671 [1995]). “[T]he amount and duration of maintenance is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and every case must be determined on its own unique facts” (Wortman v Wortman, 11 AD3d 604, 606 [2004]; see DiBlasi v DiBlasi, 48 AD3d 403, 404 [2008]; Griggs v Griggs, 44 AD3d 710, 711 [2007]). “In determining the appropriate amount and duration of maintenance, the court is required to consider, among other factors,” Page 951 text: “the standard of living of the parties during the marriage and the present and future earning capacity of both parties” (DiBlasi v DiBlasi, 48 AD3d at 404, quoting Haines v Haines, 44 AD3d 901, 902 [2007]; see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]). Considering, among other factors, the distribution of marital property, the duration of the marriage, the health of the parties, the present and future earning capacity of both parties, and the ability of the plaintiff to become self-supporting (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; Kelly v Kelly, 69 AD3d 577, 578-579 [2010]; Meccariello v Meccariello, 46 AD3d 640, 641-642 [2007]), the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff an award of spousal maintenance (see Dellafiora v Dellafiora, 38 AD3d 825, 826 [2007]; Almeda v Hopper, 2 AD3d 471 [2003]). A court need not rely upon a party’s own account of his or her finances, but may impute income based upon the party’s past income or demonstrated future potential earnings (see Brown v Brown, 239 AD2d 535 [1997]). The level of child support is determined by the parents’ ability to provide for their children rather than their current economic situation (see Gorelik v Gorelik, 71 AD3d 730, 731 [2010]; Matter of Zwick v Kulhan, 226 AD2d 734, 734 [1996]). Here, the Supreme Court properly imputed an annual income of $30,000 to the plaintiff based upon the evidence at trial (see Gorelik v Gorelik, 71 AD3d at 731). The plaintiff did not raise the issue of attorneys’ fees in the Supreme Court, and the issue is thus not properly before this Court (see Wexelbaum v Jean, 80 AD3d 756, 758 [2011]; Willsey v Gjuraj, 65 AD3d 1228, 1231 [2009]; Green Apple Mgt. Corp. v Aronis, 55 AD3d 669 [2008]). The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.” Normalization for Laws: Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [d] [2] -> Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [d] [2] Banking Law § 675 [b] -> Banking Law § 675 [b] Citations: Sirma v Beach, 59 AD3d 611, 614 [2009] -> Ellner v Schwed, 48 AD3d 739, 740 [2008] -> Matter of Goldweber & Hershkowitz v Digsby, 32 AD3d 853, 854 [2006] -> Chamberlain v Chamberlain, 24 AD3d 589 [2005] -> Gundlach v Gundlach, 223 AD2d 942 [1996] -> Chamberlain v Chamberlain, 24 AD3d at 593 -> Tayar v Tayar, 208 AD2d 609, 610 [1994] -> Lagnena v Lagnena, 215 AD2d 445, 446 [1995] -> Di Nardo v Di Nardo, 144 AD2d 906 [1988] -> Wade v Steinfeld, 15 AD3d 390, 391 [2005] -> Giuffre v Giuffre, 204 AD2d 684, 685 [1994] -> Wade v Steinfeld, 15 AD3d at 391 -> McGarrity v McGarrity, 211 AD2d 669, 671 [1995] -> Wortman v Wortman, 11 AD3d 604, 606 [2004] -> DiBlasi v DiBlasi, 48 AD3d 403, 404 [2008] -> Griggs v Griggs, 44 AD3d 710, 711 [2007] -> DiBlasi v DiBlasi, 48 AD3d at 404 -> Haines v Haines, 44 AD3d 901, 902 [2007] -> Kelly v Kelly, 69 AD3d 577, 578-579 [2010] -> Meccariello v Meccariello, 46 AD3d 640, 641-642 [2007] -> Dellafiora v Dellafiora, 38 AD3d 825, 826 [2007] -> Almeda v Hopper, 2 AD3d 471 [2003] -> Brown v Brown, 239 AD2d 535 [1997] -> Gorelik v Gorelik, 71 AD3d 730, 731 [2010] -> Matter of Zwick v Kulhan, 226 AD2d 734, 734 [1996] -> Gorelik v Gorelik, 71 AD3d at 731 -> Wexelbaum v Jean, 80 AD3d 756, 758 [2011] -> Willsey v Gjuraj, 65 AD3d 1228, 1231 [2009] -> Green Apple Mgt. Corp. v Aronis, 55 AD3d 669 [2008] -> One thing to check: Page 951 has some OCR errors in the first paragraph: OCR: “the standard of living of the parties during the marriage and ” present earning capacity of both parties’ (Di- the and future” Image text: “the standard of living of the parties during the marriage and the present and future earning capacity of both parties’ ’ (Di-Blasi v DiBlasi...” Wait, let‘s look closer at page 951 image. “the standard of living of the parties during the marriage and the present and future earning capacity of both parties’ ’ (Di-Blasi v DiBlasi, 48 AD3d at 404, quoting Haines v Haines, 44 AD3d 901, 902 [2007]; see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]).” Correct. Page 949 bottom: Caption: Carol A. Signorile, Appellant-Respondent, v William Signorile, Respondent-Appellant. [958 NYS2d 476]— (There is an em-dash or horizontal rule there). Final check on court: judges Angiolillo, Dickerson, Miller, Hinds-Radix are AD2. Dillon, Balkin, Chambers, Hall are AD2. Court: “Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department” Abbreviation for metadata: `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“` (or just `court=“NY App. Div.“` following bluebook). Bluebook is `N.Y. App. Div.`. Let‘s build the HTML. One detail: The OCR shows “Janu ary” and “ap peals“. I will fix these. The dates in the text are 2011-01-24. But the appellate decision date is likely in 2012 or late 2011. Since it is not in the caption or text, I will skip the date attribute in details. Docket: Not provided in caption. Skip. Wait, I see “949” at the top of the first page. That‘s the reporter page. The citation [958 NYS2d 476] is also given. Let‘s begin.