Opinion
Argued January 18, 2001.
April 5, 2001.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), entered October 15, 1998, which, inter alia, only awarded her child support in the sum of $2,920 per month, maintenance in the sum of $1,000 per month for a period of five years, and 40% of the value of the defendant's business.
Barrocas Rieger, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Sol Barrocas and Lloyd C. Rosen of counsel), for appellant.
Sawyer, Davis, Halpern Demetri, Mineola, N.Y. (Jay Davis and Jill Altarac of counsel), for respondent.
Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, P.J., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is modified by (1) deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff maintenance in the sum of $1,000 per month for a period of five years and substituting therefor a provision awarding her maintenance in the sum of $2,000 per month for a period of seven years, (2) adding a provision thereto directing the defendant to maintain a life insurance policy for the benefit of the plaintiff until payment of the distributive award and spousal maintenance is completed, and (3) adding a provision thereto directing the defendant to pay interest at the statutory rate on that portion of the distributive award which was to be paid out in installments; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
An award of maintenance should be tailored to provide an incentive to the recipient to become financially independent (see, Granade-Bastuck v. Bastuck, 249 A.D.2d 444). However, unrealistic assumptions should not be made regarding the ability of a nonworking spouse in a long-term marriage to become self-supporting (see, Sass v. Sass, 276 A.D.2d 42), and due consideration should be given to the "marital standard of living" in making the maintenance award (Sass v. Sass, supra). Considering all of the circumstances, an award of $2,000 per month for seven years is appropriate, rather than $1,000 per month for five years.
In view of the defendant's substantial interest in a successful business which was in large part unencumbered by debt, we find that the plaintiff should receive an award of interest on that portion of the distributive award which was to be paid out in installments (see, Verdrager v. Verdrager, 230 A.D.2d 786; Morton v. Morton, 130 A.D.2d 558).
The Supreme Court erred in failing to direct the defendant to obtain and maintain a life insurance policy on his life for the benefit of the plaintiff to secure his obligation to pay the maintenance and distributive award (see, Miness v. Miness, 229 A.D.2d 520; Nolfo v. Nolfo, 188 A.D.2d 451).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.