Opinion
2016–06893 Index No. 56662/10
03-13-2019
Lawrence GUGLIARA, Respondent, v. Stefanie VERAS, Appellant.
Carol Kahn, New York, NY, for appellant. Michael J. Good, Brooklyn, NY, for respondent. Rhonda R. Weir, Brooklyn, NY, attorney for the child.
Carol Kahn, New York, NY, for appellant.
Michael J. Good, Brooklyn, NY, for respondent.
Rhonda R. Weir, Brooklyn, NY, attorney for the child.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, HECTOR D. LASALLE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERORDERED that the appeal from so much of the judgment as awarded sole custody of the parties' child Lawrence to the plaintiff is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
The parties were married in 2002 and had two children together. In December 2010, the plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief. Following a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court awarded sole custody of the children to the plaintiff and awarded the defendant maintenance in the sum of $ 400 per month for a period of five years. The defendant appeals.
"The 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 unique facts" ( Culen v. Culen , 157 A.D.3d 926, 928, 69 N.Y.S.3d 702 ). Here, considering the relevant factors, which included the length of the marriage, the standard of living of the parties, their respective ages and present and future earning capacities, and their respective income and assets (see Domestic Relations Law former § 236[B][6][a]; Neumann v. Hercz , 166 A.D.3d 790, 88 N.Y.S.3d 246 ; Gorman v. Gorman , 165 A.D.3d 1067, 86 N.Y.S.3d 554 ), we find that the amount and duration of the award of maintenance was a provident exercise of discretion.
With respect to custody, the parties' oldest child is now 18 years old and can no longer be the subject of a custody order (see Slater–Mau v. Mau , 4 A.D.3d 658, 772 N.Y.S.2d 134 ; Matter of Lazaro v. Lazaro , 227 A.D.2d 402, 642 N.Y.S.2d 67 ). The Supreme Court's determination that the best interests of the parties' youngest child would be served by awarding sole custody to the plaintiff, with liberal parental access to the defendant, has a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed (see Matter of Gooler v. Gooler , 107 A.D.3d 712, 966 N.Y.S.2d 208 ).
MASTRO, J.P., DUFFY, LASALLE and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.