Opinion
June 12, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Radin, J.H.O.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendant has failed to establish his entitlement to have his maintenance arrears offset and canceled by the expenses he incurred as a result of the plaintiff's alleged intransigence in selling the marital residence (cf., Dobransky v. Dobransky, 89 A.D.2d 614). As the Judicial Hearing Officer noted, "though we may speculate that the plaintiff is not eager to facilitate the sale for her own purposes, there is no impediment to the defendant's [sic] proceeding on his own to list the property and create conditions leading up to the sale. Absent some persuasive evidence that plaintiff, by some identifiable action or inaction, interfered with the consummation of a sale, such as her failure to cooperate in showing the property, or refusing to execute necessary documents when presented, [defendant] cannot escape his duty to contribute to the upkeep of the house as directed in the judgment [of divorce]. Nothing in the evidence establishes plaintiff's interference with defendant's endeavors, if any, to sell the property in compliance with this court's order, and plaintiff's bare motive to do so is insufficient to relieve defendant of his court ordered obligations".
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.