Osuagwu v. Osuagwu

215 N.Y.S.3d 504

229 A.D.3d 802

Leaticia C. OSUAGWU, respondent,

v.Chinonyerem O. OSUAGWU, appellant

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—May 28, 2024

July 31, 2024

Chinonyerem O. Osuagwu, New City, NY, appellant pro se.

Phyllis E. Simon, New City, NY, for respondent.

Nicole DiGiacomo, New City, NY, attorney for the child.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, CARL J. LANDICINO, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from stated portions of a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherri L. Eisenpress, J.), dated February 8, 2022. The judgment of divorce, upon a decision of the same court, also dated February 8, 2022, made after a nonjury trial, inter alia, determined that certain premises are marital property subject to equitable distribution, with the parties to share equally in the net proceeds of the sale of those premises, directed that the defendant was solely responsible for payment of unpaid federal and state income taxes, penalties, fines, or interest due, awarded the plaintiff sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ children, and awarded the plaintiff counsel fees in the amount of $15,000.

ORDERED that the judgment of divorce is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The parties were married in 2012, and have two children. In 2020, the plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief. After a nonjury trial and upon a decision dated February 3, 2022, the Supreme Court entered a judgment of divorce, also dated February 3, 2022, The defendant appeals from stated portions of the judgment of divorce.

[1, 2] "The trial court is vested with broad discretion in making an equitable distribution of marital property and unless it can be shown that the court improvidently exercised that discretion, its determination should not be disturbed" (Kamm v. Kamm, 182 A.D.3d 590, 591, 120 N.Y.S.3d 815 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "Moreover, where, as here, the determination as to equitable distribution has been made after a nonjury trial, the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is afforded great weight on appeal" (Tzu Ching Kao v. Bonalle, 214 A.D.3d 922, 924, 185 N.Y.S.3d 317).

[3, 4] The Supreme Court properly determined that the marital residence constituted marital property. " ‘Property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be marital property and the party seeking to overcome such presumption has the burden of proving that the property in dispute is separate property’ " (Keren v. Keren, 201 A.D.3d 906, 907, 158 N.Y.S.3d 592, quoting Steinberg v. Steinberg, 59 A.D.3d 702, 704, 874 N.Y.S.2d 230 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the record established that the residence was acquired during the marriage with marital funds, and the defendant failed to adduce sufficient evidence so as to overcome the marital property presumption (see Novick v. Novick, 214 A.D.3d 995, 999, 185 N.Y.S.3d 793; Cuomo v. Moss, 199 A.D.3d 635, 636, 157 N.Y.S.3d 475).

[5] The defendant’s contentions regarding prior orders of the Supreme Court that authorized the plaintiff to sign certain documents on behalf of the defendant in order to effectuate the sale of the marital residence are properly raised on this appeal from the judgment of divorce (see CPLR 5501[a][1]; Shah v. Oral Cancer Prevention Intl., Inc., 138 A.D.3d 722, 723-724, 30 N.Y.S.3d 154). The defendant contends that the plaintiff committed forgery when, pursuant to the court’s authorization, the plaintiff signed certain documents on behalf of the defendant in order to effectuate the sale of the marital residence. However, the plaintiff did not commit forgery as there was no "intent to defraud, deceive, or injure another" (Penal Law §§ 170.05, 170.10), in that the plaintiff was authorized by the court to sign for the defendant (see People v. Briggins, 50 N.Y.2d 302, 306, 428 N.Y.S.2d 909, 406 N.E.2d 766; Pauyo v. Pauyo, 102 A.D.3d 847, 848, 959 N.Y.S.2d 215).

[6, 7] The Supreme Court properly directed that the defendant was solely responsible for payment of unpaid federal and state income taxes, penalties, fines, or interest due. The income tax liability of the parties is subject to equitable distribution (see Lago v. Adrion, 93 A.D.3d 697, 940 N.Y.S.2d 287; Conway v. Conway, 29 A.D.3d 725, 815 N.Y.S.2d 233), but equitable distribution does not necessarily mean equal distribution (see Auriemmo v. Auriemmo, 87 A.D.3d 1090, 930 N.Y.S.2d 221). Here, the credible evidence established that the plaintiff filed separate tax returns and that the defendant had not filed any tax returns since approximately 2013. Inasmuch as the plaintiff paid her tax liability by filing separate income tax returns, the court properly directed that the defendant was responsible for any outstanding tax liability and that the defendant would indemnify the plaintiff for any tax liability, penalties, fines, or interest due (see Frey v. Frey, 68 A.D.3d 1052, 1053, 892 N.Y.S.2d 159).

[8-10] The Supreme Court properly awarded the plaintiff sole legal and...