Opinion
January 8, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Saxe, J.).
The parties, ages 45 and 40, respectively, were married four years. There are no issue of the marriage, although plaintiff, a salesman for his father's company earning a gross salary of approximately $125,000, did support defendant's son from a previous marriage. The parties maintained a luxurious standard of living, generally as a result of plaintiff's father's largess. Defendant did not work during the marriage, suffers from depression and is presently unable to support herself.
Defendant contends that plaintiff failed to establish his entitlement to a divorce on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment, which requires a showing of serious misconduct. (Domestic Relations Law § 170; Brady v Brady, 64 N.Y.2d 339.) The findings of the trial court that certain conduct constituted cruel and inhuman treatment on this issue will not be lightly set aside on appeal (Rieger v Rieger, 161 A.D.2d 227) and special deference is paid to the trial court's determination of credibility in weighing conflicting testimony (see, Rispoli v Rispoli, 131 A.D.2d 556, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 609). While many of the allegations were disregarded by the trial court as uncorroborated (see, Lind v Lind, 89 A.D.2d 518, affd 58 N.Y.2d 965; but see, D'Amato v D'Amato, 96 A.D.2d 849 ), the credited evidence was sufficient to warrant the trial court's conclusions.
The court properly considered the factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) in determining maintenance, taking into account plaintiff's father's contributions (Match v Match, 134 A.D.2d 210). The court fixed a duration for maintenance which would afford defendant both the opportunity and incentive to become self-supporting (Reina v Reina, 153 A.D.2d 775), as there was no showing that plaintiff's depression rendered her an "emotional cripple" who would require maintenance of unlimited duration (cf., Malamut v Malamut, 133 A.D.2d 101, 103). However, to secure payment of maintenance in the event of plaintiff's death, the court should have directed plaintiff to obtain life insurance for the benefit of defendant (see, Delaney v Delaney, 114 A.D.2d 312). The policy in the amount of $75,000 currently maintained should be retained for the duration of the maintenance requirement. We see no abuse of discretion in dividing the marital properly equally between the parties, including the proceeds from the sale of the rights of purchase of the marital apartment (Forcucci v Forcucci, 83 A.D.2d 169, 171).
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Asch, Smith and Rubin, JJ.