Opinion
2001-10391
Submitted December 10, 2002.
January 13, 2003.
In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gartenstein, J.H.O.), dated August 14, 2001, as awarded the defendant a 50% distributive share of the marital residence less 50% of the reduction of the mortgage principal.
Polly N. Passonneau, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Stuart G. Blumberg, Central Islip, N.Y. (Ernest M. Bongermino of counsel), for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, BARRY A. COZIER, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the Supreme Court properly considered that although she had sole financial responsibility for the premises following the defendant's abandonment, she also had sole occupancy of the house, and collected and kept all of its rental income. Moreover, no evidence was adduced which would indicate that the defendant was financially irresponsible or contributed minimally to the marriage during the time when the parties were together. Accordingly, the court's determination that the defendant should receive a 50% distributive share of the marital residence less 50% of the reduction of the mortgage principal was justified (see generally Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(5); Arvantides v. Arvantides, 64 N.Y.2d 1033; Murphy v. Murphy, 193 A.D.2d 1068; cf. Greene v. Greene, 250 A.D.2d 572; Sade v. Sade, 251 A.D.2d 646; Mutt v. Mutt, 242 A.D.2d 612; Barnes v. Barnes, 106 A.D.2d 535; Matwijczuk v. Matwijczuk, 261 A.D.2d 784; Whispell v. Whispell, 144 A.D.2d 804).
RITTER, J.P., LUCIANO, COZIER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.