It took nine years to affirm a five-year maintenance award. In an April 24, 2019 decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department, the Court in Rogowski v. Rogowski affirmed a March, 2010 divorce judgment under which the wife was awarded maintenance for five years of $2500 per month plus 60% of the husband’s annual employment bonus in excess of $14,200. The action for divorce had been commenced in 2008.
The Court held that held that Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Arthur Diamond did not improvidently exercise his discretion when determining the amount and duration of maintenance. The Court emphasized the parties agreed that the wife would quit work and care for the children, and the parties’ respective incomes and future employment prospects.
Justice Diamond properly considered the factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law former § 236(B)(6)(a) in making its determination, including, inter alia, the present or future earning capacity of the parties; the need of one party to incur education or training expenses; the care of children provided during the marriage that inhibits a party’s earning capacity; the reduced or lost earning capacity of the payee as a result of having forgone or delayed education, training, employment, or career opportunities during the marriage; the contributions and services of the payee as a spouse, parent, wage earner, and homemaker to the career or career potential of the other party; and the wasteful dissipation of material property by either spouse.
Also, contrary to the husband’s contention, the award of a portion of the husband’s annual employment bonus as a part of maintenance did not constitute an improper open-ended obligation.
Previously reported decisions on motions include:
- In November, 2010, the husband’s time to perfect his appeal was enlarged to December, 2010.
- In January, 2011, the Court extended the time until January 20, 2011.
- In December 2013, the Second Department had previously granted the wife an extension of time to file her brief until January, 2014.
- In August, 2018, the Court granted the application of the husband’s counsel to withdraw.
There was no indication that a stay of the maintenance obligation had been granted.