- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Atkins v. Atkins
Atkins v Atkins
2026 NY Slip Op 06185 October 22, 2026 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. James C. Atkins, Respondent- Appellant,
v
Shirley F. Atkins, Appellant- Respondent. (Action No. 1.) In the Matter of James C. Atkins, Respondent, Decided and Entered:October 22, 2026
CV-25-0066
Calendar Date: September 10, 2026
Before: Aarons, J.P., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher, Powers And Mackey, JJ. Assaf & Siegal PLLC, Albany (David M. Siegal of counsel), for appellant-respondent in action No. 1 and appellant in proceeding No. 1.
Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, LLP, Albany (J. Rochelle Cavanagh of counsel), for respondent-appellant in action No. 1 and respondent in proceeding No. 1.
[*1]
Aarons, J.P.
(1) Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Keith Bruno, J.), entered December 18, 2024 in Clinton County, which granted petitioner's application, in proceeding No. 1 pursuant to Family Ct Act article 8, finding respondent to have committed a family offense, (2) appeal from an order of said court, entered December 18, 2024 in Clinton County, directing, in action No. 1, among other things, equitable distribution of the parties' marital property, and (3) cross- appeals from the judgment issued thereon.
James C. Atkins (hereinafter the husband) and Shirley F. Atkins (hereinafter the wife) were married in 1993 and are the parents of two adult children. Throughout the marriage, the parties owned and operated various businesses, eventually forming Northline Ventures, Inc., a utility construction business that the husband solely owned until 2020. In that year, the husband redeemed 20% of his shares in Northline Ventures in exchange for a promissory note in the amount of $5,394,463 at 6% interest, payable to the husband in 80 quarterly installments of $116,241. Northline Ventures, in turn, sold those shares to an employee stock ownership plan (hereinafter ESOP).
The husband commenced this action for divorce and ancillary relief in January 2022, and the wife thereafter joined issue and counterclaimed for divorce and ancillary relief. In January 2023, the husband commenced a Family Ct Act article 8 proceeding in Family Court against the wife, seeking, among other things, an order of protection. Upon consent, that proceeding was transferred to Supreme Court and joined with the divorce action. As to the divorce action, the parties resolved most issues of equitable distribution by agreement, and the unresolved distribution issues and family offense petition proceeded to trial, after which Supreme Court found that the wife was entitled to 22.5% of the husband's ownership interest in Northline Ventures, 22.5% of the quarterly payments due to the husband from the 2020 stock sale (hereinafter the ESOP payments) and 22.5% of the value of the husband's partial ownership interests in Wild Goose Club, Inc. and SS & J Northeast Development, LLC (hereinafter SS & J). All told, the court distributed to the wife $6,833,448, and directed the husband to make an initial $1,000,000 payment on that sum and pay the balance of just over $5.8 million in quarterly installments of $150,000 at 5% interest until paid in full. The court also declined to credit the husband for paying the wife's share of the parties' 2022 income tax obligation. These cross-appeals ensued.FN1 The wife argues that Supreme Court should have awarded her 50% of the husband's interest in Northline Ventures, while the husband claims the wife was entitled only to 10% of his interest. We disagree on both fronts, as our review of the court's decision and the record discloses no "abuse of discretion or failure to consider the requisite statutory factors under Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (d)" (Reiser v Reiser[*2], 242 AD3d 1319, 1321 [3d Dept 2025] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Kopko v Kopko, 229 AD3d 974, 977 [3d Dept 2024], appeal dismissed 42 NY3d 1086 [2025]). The award reflects the long duration of the parties' marriage, the wife's direct contributions to Northline Ventures between 2009 and 2014, as well as her indirect contributions as primary caretaker for the parties' children and her substantial roles in the parties' other businesses and projects. That said, the wife conceded that Northline Ventures' success was owed largely to the husband's vision and work and that it had its most profitable years after her direct involvement had already concluded, and no evidence demonstrated that the increase in the value of the husband's ownership interest in Northline Ventures since that time was attributable to the wife's indirect contributions (see Lorne v Lorne, 217 AD3d 412, 414 [1st Dept 2023]). In light of the wife's role as primary caretaker of the parties' younger child, who is an adult with special needs, and insofar as the ESOP payments are compensation for the sale of
1
marital property during the marriage, the factors supporting the wife's 22.5% distributive share of Northline Ventures also support distributing to her 22.5% of the ESOP payments (compare Lieberman-Massoni v Massoni, 215 AD3d 656, 659 [2d Dept 2023], lv denied 45 NY3d 906 [2026]). Contrary to the husband's view, the court appropriately weighed credible evidence that the wife caused interpersonal conflict at Northline Ventures; as the court found, no proof demonstrated that the wife's conduct affected Northline Ventures' customers or profitability (compare Schwartz v Schwartz, 54 AD3d 400, 402 [2d Dept 2008]). As such, the distribution of Northline Ventures, as well as the ESOP payments, will not be disturbed.
The wife also contends that Supreme Court abused its discretion in awarding her 22.5% of the value of the husband's partial ownership interests in Wild Goose Club and SS & J, valued at $20,475 and $92,700, respectively. The husband, by contrast, argues that the wife should have received 5%. Once again, we disagree with both parties. Initially, Supreme Court did not articulate which statutory factors it considered in distributing Wild Goose Club and SS & J (see King v King, 202 AD3d 1383, 1388 [3d Dept 2022]; Martin v Martin, 178 AD3d 1339, 1341 [3d Dept 2019]). Nevertheless, "the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind in a close case that the trial court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony" (Kirshner v Kirshner, 228 AD3d 923, 924 [2d Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Ramadan v Ramadan, 195 AD3d 1174, 1175 [3d Dept 2021]). The wife testified that she made no direct contributions to Wild Goose Club and did not know certain details of SS & J's operations, but there is no dispute that the husband's [*3]interests in Wild Goose Club and SS & J are marital property, and the husband offered no evidence of his contributions to those businesses at all (compare Arthur v Arthur, 148 AD3d 1254, 1255 [3d Dept 2017]). Considering the length of the parties' marriage and the overall distribution of the marital estate, and mindful that equitable distribution does not necessarily mean equal distribution (see Reiser v Reiser, 242 AD3d at 1321; Allen v Allen, 179 AD3d 1318, 1319 [3d Dept 2020]), the wife's award of 22.5% of the value of the husband's interests in Wild Goose Club and SS & J was not an abuse of discretion.
The wife further challenges Supreme Court's decision to direct the husband to pay the roughly $5.8 million balance of the wife's distributive award in quarterly $150,000 installments at 5% interest, as opposed to the statutory 9% rate (see CPLR 5004 [a]). As to the structured distribution, the court considered the quarterly ESOP payments received by the husband and the wife's overall share of the marital estate, and credible testimony established the nonliquidity of Northline Ventures along with the tax and other consequences that would arise from realizing the full distribution award (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d]; Culman v Boesky, 207 AD3d 18, 27 [1st Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 907 [2023]; Sprole v Sprole, 145 AD3d 1367, 1371 [3d Dept 2016]). Furthermore, the 5% interest rate on the unpaid balance of the distributive award was explained in the court's findings and supported by credible testimony as to the husband's and Northline Ventures' finances (see Bohnsack v Bohnsack, 185 AD2d 533, 536 [3d Dept 1992]). Accordingly, we cannot say that the court exceeded the substantial discretion it possesses to direct the manner in which a distributive award may be paid or to impose interest on an unpaid award at a rate it deems fair and equitable under the circumstances (see Mairs v Mairs, 61 AD3d 1204, 1208 & n 5 [3d Dept 2009]; Hamroff v Hamroff, 35 AD3d 365, 366 [2d Dept 2006]).
The husband next challenges Supreme Court's denial of his request for a credit for paying the wife's share of their 2022 joint income tax liability. Relevant here, Northline Ventures is an S corporation and, as such, its 2022 income was reported as the husband's income. The wife agreed to filing the parties' 2022 income tax return jointly rather than separately, resulting in a tax savings of over $130,000. Considering the disparity in the parties' reported income, most of that savings necessarily benefited Northline Ventures and/or the husband. Indeed, the wife testified, without contradiction, that any additional tax owed by the parties in the past had been paid by Northline Ventures, and the husband failed to prove he personally paid any part of the wife's tax obligation. In light of the overall distributive award, and in particular the small share of the husband's interest in Northline Ventures distributed to the wife, we cannot say that the court abused its [*4]discretion in declining to credit the husband with paying the wife's portion of the 2022 income tax liability (see DeCrescenzo v Suslak, 238 AD3d 1406, 1407 [3d Dept 2025], lv dismissed 44 NY3d 1004 [2025], lv denied 45 NY3d 909 [2026]). The parties' remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be addressed in light of our decision.
Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher, Powers and Mackey, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the appeals from the orders entered December 18, 2024 in proceeding No. 1 and in action No. 1 are dismissed, without costs.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Footnotes
Footnote 1 By separate order, Supreme Court found that the wife had committed various family offenses and stated that a dispositional hearing would be scheduled at a later date. That fact-finding order is not appealable as of right (see Family Ct Act 1112 [a]), and, in any event, the wife has not directed any of her appellate contentions at the propriety of the court's findings, rendering any appeal therefrom abandoned (seeJennifer JJ. v Scott KK., 117 AD3d 1158, 1159 n 1 [3d Dept 2014]; Matter of Eck v Eck, 57 AD3d 1243, 1244 n [3d Dept 2008]). Furthermore, the wife's right to appeal from the equitable distribution order terminated upon entry of the judgment of divorce; however, the appealed-from judgment brings up for review the issues in that order (seeDeCrescenzo v Suslak, 238 AD3d 1406, 1406 n 1 [3d Dept 2025], lv dismissed 44 NY3d 1004 [2025], lv denied 45 NY3d 909 [2026]).
2
Alert