ELINORR. TATUM, plf-res, v. CURTIS R. SIMMONS, def-ap

16228-16228A-16228B-16228C-16228D-16228E. ELINORR. TATUM, plf-res, v. CURTIS R. SIMMONS, def-ap — GRIMES & ZIMET NonParty ap — Catafago Fini LLP, New York (Jacques Catafago of counsel), for Curtis R. Simmons, ap — Grimes & Zimet, Chappaqua (John J. Grimes of counsel), for Grimes & Zimet and John J. Grimes, ap — Aronson Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP, New York (Alyssa Rower of counsel), for res — Judgment of divorce, New York County (Matthew F. Cooper, J.), entered June 12, 2014, which, inter alia, awarded defendant husband $30,006 in equitable distribution, awarded the parties joint legal custody of their child with separate decision-making zones and a near 50/50 parental access schedule, and denied the husband's request for an award of counsel fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeals from orders, same court and Justice, entered February 7, 2013, May 29, 2013, December 18, 2013, and March 24, 2014, and entered on or about December 13, 2012, which, inter alia, denied the husband's motions for interim awards of counsel fees, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

16228-16228A-16228B-16228C-16228D-16228E. ELINORR. TATUM, plf-res, v. CURTIS R. SIMMONS, def-ap — GRIMES & ZIMET NonParty ap — Catafago Fini LLP, New York (Jacques Catafago of counsel), for Curtis R. Simmons, ap — Grimes & Zimet, Chappaqua (John J. Grimes of counsel), for Grimes & Zimet and John J. Grimes, ap — Aronson Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP, New York (Alyssa Rower of counsel), for res — Judgment of divorce, New York County (Matthew F. Cooper, J.), entered June 12, 2014, which, inter alia, awarded defendant husband $30,006 in equitable distribution, awarded the parties joint legal custody of their child with separate decision-making zones and a near 50/50 parental access schedule, and denied the husband’s request for an award of counsel fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeals from orders, same court and Justice, entered February 7, 2013, May 29, 2013, December 18, 2013, and March 24, 2014, and entered on or about December 13, 2012, which, inter alia, denied the husband’s motions for interim awards of counsel fees, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Supreme Court’s distribution of marital property was amply supported by the record and was not an abuse of discretion (see Domestic Relations Law §236 [B][5][d]; Holterman v. Holterman, 3 NY3d 1 [2004]). The court properly found that the husband was not entitled to a portion of the appreciation in the value of the wife’s real estate properties, which were her separate property, because the husband failed to demonstrate that the property in question increased in value or that he contributed to any alleged appreciation (see Embury v. Embury, 49 AD3d 802, 804 [2nd Dept 2008]). The husband also never sought to have the wife’s pension distributed at trial and never provided any evidence as to its increase in value.

ELINORR. TATUM, plf-res, v. CURTIS R. SIMMONS, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal