# Brown v. Brown

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · December 16, 2014 · 123 A.D.3d 596

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2761200

## Case

- **Full name:** Jennifer Brown, Appellant-Respondent, v. Michael Brown, Respondent-Appellant
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** December 16, 2014
- **Citations:** 123 A.D.3d 596; 999 N.Y.S.2d 59
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Mazzarelli, Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman, Gische
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2761200

## Opinion text

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Deborah A. Kaplan, J.), entered September 5, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, directed defendant husband to pay plaintiff wife monthly temporary taxable maintenance in the amount of $37,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court properly applied the formula set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5-a) (c) (2) (a) in calculating the award of temporary spousal maintenance to plaintiff wife. Specifically, the court listed all 19 of the enumerated factors, explained how the factors support an upward deviation from the $13,100 a month in guideline support, and found that $37,000 per month was not “unjust or inappropriate” under the circumstances
(Lennox v Weberman,
109 AD3d 703 [1st Dept 2013]).
The court also properly imputed an annual income to the husband of $900,000 when it computed the maintenance award
(see Lennox,
109 AD3d at 703-704 ;
see also Hickland v Hickland,
39 NY2d 1, 4-6 [1976],
cert denied
429 US 941 [1976]). The court took into account the effect of loss adjustments on the parties’ tax returns, the family’s monthly expenses, and the fact that the husband can manipulate his income as evidenced by the disparity between his W-2 income and the parties’ monthly expenses.
In any event, the amount awarded is a proper accommodation between the reasonable needs of plaintiff and the financial ability of defendant, while taking into consideration the preseparation standard of living
(see Marfilius v Marfilius,
239 AD2d 299 , 300 [1997]).
The court providently exercised its discretion in making the award of temporary maintenance taxable to the wife
(see Lasry
*597
v Lasry,
180 AD2d 488, 489 [1st Dept 1992];
Siskind v Siskind,
89 AD3d 832, 833 [2d Dept 2011]).
Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2761200. Public record. Not legal advice.