DIVORCE - EQUITABLE NOT EQUAL

McCormack v McCormack, 2018 NY Slip Op 05032, Decided on July 5, 2018, Appellate Division, Second Department:

"Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff a 65% distributive share of the defendant's tax-deferred annuity. " 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'" (Halley-Boyce v Boyce, 108 AD3d 503, 504, quoting Safi v Safi, 94 AD3d 737, 737). " Equitable distribution does not necessarily mean equal distribution'" (Halley-Boyce v Boyce, 108 AD3d at 504, quoting Michaelessi v Michaelessi, 59 AD3d 688, 689). The court properly took into consideration its finding that the defendant was deliberately evasive in his testimony (see Kerley v Kerley, 131 AD3d 1124), and that he diverted marital assets to support a second family for almost 10 years (see Renck v Renck, 131 AD3d 1146; Sotnik v Zavilyansky, 101 AD3d 1102; Altieri v Altieri, 35 AD3d 1093; Coleman v Coleman, 284 AD2d 426; Southwick v Southwick, 202 AD2d 996)."