Marshak v. Marshak

2025 NY Slip Op 04281 · Appellate Division, Third Department · July 24, 2025 · No. CV-24-0212

Summary

This New York Appellate Division decision reviews a Supreme Court judgment in a divorce action concerning the equitable distribution of marital assets and the allocation of tax liabilities. The court upheld the trial court's determination that the husband should cover the wife's 2020 income tax liability due to his unilateral filing decisions and control over corporate distributions. Additionally, the appellate court affirmed the award of substantial counsel and expert fees to the wife, finding the husband's superior financial position and litigation tactics justified the expense. The judgment was modified only to correct minor discrepancies between the decision and the written judgment regarding the exact fee amounts.

Court
Appellate Division, Third Department
Writing for the Court
Egan Jr., J.P.; Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher, McShan and Mackey, JJ.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
July 24, 2025
Docket number
CV-24-0212
Procedural posture
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ulster County) ordering equitable distribution of marital property.
Standard of review
Abuse of discretion
Precedential value
published
Parties
Harvey Marshak v. Wendy Marshak
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

divorceequitable distributionfamily law procedureincome taxtax

Practice areas

family law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Supreme Court abused its discretion in directing the husband to pay the wife $223,807 for her 2020 income‑tax liability.
  2. Whether the Supreme Court abused its discretion in crediting the wife’s separate‑asset contribution to the marital residence.
  3. Whether the Supreme Court abused its discretion in refusing to credit the husband for $400,000 improvements to property adjacent to the marital residence.
  4. Whether the Supreme Court abused its discretion in awarding the wife counsel and expert fees.

Holdings

  1. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s award, finding no abuse of discretion.
  2. The court affirmed the credit, finding no abuse of discretion.
  3. The appellate court affirmed the refusal to credit, finding no abuse of discretion.
  4. The appellate court affirmed the award, finding no abuse of discretion.

Key quotations

There is no requirement that the distribution of each item of marital property be on an equal or 50-50 basis. (*2)
Where there is an inconsistency between a judgment and the decision upon which it is based, the decision controls. (*2)

Factual background

The parties married in June 2018 after a long relationship and owned substantial assets both before and during the marriage, including a residence purchased by the wife in 2007 and later jointly titled, and shares in the business International Pathways, Inc. The wife moved out in October 2020 and filed for divorce in December 2020. The trial in 2023 focused on equitable distribution, the husband’s handling of IPI assets, and the disposition of the marital residence and adjacent property.

Procedural history

The Supreme Court entered a judgment on Dec. 29, 2023 after a non‑jury trial on equitable distribution, directing the husband to pay the wife tax liabilities, counsel fees and expert fees. The husband appealed alleging abuse of discretion.

Remand instructions

Modify the judgment to reflect the decision’s fee amounts: counsel fee $549,962.37 and expert fee $122,951, and affirm the rest of the equitable distribution award.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…