140 A.D.2d 662, 529 N.Y.S.2d 14

George J. Contino, Appellant, v. Carol Contino, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York

May 31, 1988

OPINION OF THE COURT

[*14] COUNSEL:  Jeremy D. Morley, New York City, for appellant.

Sager & Gellerman, Forest Hills (Audrey M. Sager, of counsel), for respondent.

JUDGES:  Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.), dated October 20, 1987, as (1) granted a distributive award to the defendant wife, (2) granted exclusive occupancy of the marital residence to the defendant, and (3) granted child support to the defendant.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting from subdivision (a) of the ninth decretal paragraph thereof all the language starting with the words “said sum to be paid to defendant” and substituting therefor “$220,000 to be paid to the defendant and $10,000 to the plaintiff, representing the defendant’s one-half interest in such funds and the payment of a distributive award of those funds by the plaintiff to the defendant. In the event either party refuses to sign a withdrawal slip, the individual banks shall release the sums to the parties”; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The trial court properly awarded the defendant $105,000 for funds that the plaintiff withdrew from bank accounts and concealed so they could not be distributed. Both parties testified that they enjoyed an affluent life-style, including expensive cars, costly vacations, private schooling for their child, and similar indulgences. Such a life-style could not be supported either on the income or by the resources that the plaintiff revealed to the trial court. Secreting assets in order to prevent the trial court from making an equitable distribution [*663] of property supports a finding of economic fault (see, Domestic Relations Law  [**15]  § 236 [B] [1] [c]; [5] [d] [11]; Blickstein v. Blickstein, 99 A.D.2d 287, 292-294, 472 N.Y.S.2d 110; cf., Griffin v. Griffin, 115 A.D.2d 587, 588, 496 N.Y.S.2d 249). Once such a finding is made, the trial court must consider the missing assets in making its distributive award (see, Harrell v. Harrell, 120 AD2d 565, 566, 502 N.Y.S.2d 57).

The trial court nevertheless erred in ordering that all of the money in the joint accounts be released to the defendant. The defendant's entitlement is limited to $220,000, representing one half of $230,000, plus $105,000.

We have considered the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.