From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arany v. Arany

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 26, 2001
282 A.D.2d 389 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

April 26, 2001.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered March 8, 2000, which,inter alia, confirmed a Special Referee's report on the issue of equitable distribution, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thomas Torto, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Joseph A. Barbosa, for Defendant-Respondent.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Wallach, Lerner, Rubin, JJ.


The record supports the finding that, from 1989 to 1998, plaintiff husband diverted to his personal use over $500,000 in income from the main marital asset, a 66-unit apartment building owned by MTA Management Corp. Pursuant to an August 1989 stipulation, so-ordered by Supreme Court, all receipts from the operation of the building were to be deposited in the corporate bank account, discretionary expenditures were to be approved by both plaintiff and defendant's attorneys, and plaintiff was to supply accountings to defendant, as directed by the court. The stipulation further provides that any diverted funds would be regarded as fraudulent transfers, deducted from plaintiff's share of the marital property and credited to defendant.

While plaintiff thwarted the attempt to document corporate receipts and expenditures, the Referee reasonably concluded that plaintiff diverted at least $50,000 a year from the corporation to his personal use over a 10-year period and, thus, the award of $500,000 to defendant was proper, as was the computation of 9% interest from January 1995, a reasonable, intermediate date (CPLR 5001[b]). The record also supports the finding that plaintiff failed to account for $37,889.37 in security deposits, reducing the building's sales price and precipitating an unnecessary foreclosure proceeding. The award of $25,000 for the additional cost to settle the foreclosure action is an appropriate amount to compensate defendant for the waste of marital property. However, as the motion court observed, defendant waived a payment of an additional $125,000 recommended by the Special Referee as compensation for waste she alleged to have been caused by plaintiff's failure to convert the corporate owner from a C corporation to an S corporation.

We reject plaintiff's argument that taxes due on the sale of the building should be deducted from its sales proceeds before distribution in view of the 1991 stipulation, also so-ordered by the court, in which the parties agreed to the direct distribution of the sales proceeds, with each party to be responsible for his or her own tax liability. We have considered plaintiff's other arguments, including those challenging the finding of contempt and the submission to the Referee of the amount of attorneys' fees, and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Arany v. Arany

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 26, 2001
282 A.D.2d 389 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Arany v. Arany

Case Details

Full title:TIBOR ARANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT v. MAGDALENA ARANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT

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

Date published: Apr 26, 2001

Citations

282 A.D.2d 389 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
723 N.Y.S.2d 660

Citing Cases

Zelouf Int'l Corp. v. Zelouf

ounting for everything except the derivative claims and attorneys' fees, is $8,893,000, 25% of which equals…

W. & M. Operating, L.L.C. v. Bakhshi

That is improper as the court already expressly denied Porco leave to assert veil-piercing claims (see 2018…