From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Contino v. Contino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 31, 1988
140 A.D.2d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

May 31, 1988

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


Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting from subdivision (a) of the the ninth decretal paragraph thereof all the language starting with the words "said sum to be paid to defendant" and substituting therefor "$220,000 to be paid to the defendant and $10,000 to the plaintiff, representing the defendant's one-half interest in such funds and the payment of a distributive award of those funds by the plaintiff to the defendant. In the event either party refuses to sign a withdrawal slip, the individual banks shall release the sums to the parties"; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The trial court properly awarded the defendant $105,000 for funds that the plaintiff withdrew from bank accounts and concealed so they could not be distributed. Both parties testified that they enjoyed an affluent life-style, including expensive cars, costly vacations, private schooling for their child, and similar indulgences. Such a life-style could not be supported either on the income or by the resources that the plaintiff revealed to the trial court. Secreting assets in order to prevent the trial court from making an equitable distribution of property supports a finding of economic fault (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [c]; [5] [d] [11]; Blickstein v Blickstein, 99 A.D.2d 287, 292-294; cf., Griffin v Griffin, 115 A.D.2d 587, 588). Once such a finding is made, the trial court must consider the missing assets in making its distributive award (see, Harrell v Harrell, 120 A.D.2d 565, 566).

The trial court nevertheless erred in ordering that all of the money in the joint accounts be released to the defendant. The defendant's entitlement is limited to $220,000, representing one half of $230,000, plus $105,000.

We have considered the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Contino v. Contino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 31, 1988
140 A.D.2d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Contino v. Contino

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE J. CONTINO, Appellant, v. CAROL CONTINO, Respondent

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

Date published: May 31, 1988

Citations

140 A.D.2d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

P.D. v. L.D.

“Once such a finding is made, the trial court must consider the missing assets in making its distributive…

P.D. v. L.D.

"Once such a finding is made, the trial court must consider the missing assets in making its distributive…