SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF -------------------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff, Index No.: -against- DECISION AFTER TRIAL (# 1) Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------------X Appearances: Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant Law Guardian , J.: This is an action for absolute divorce commenced by Plaintiff, , againstdefendant, . Defendant interposed a counterclaim for divorce. The trial was heldbefore this Court on the following date(s): . The Court conducted an in-camera interview of the three children of this marriage on . Those in-camera proceedings were conducted on the record with law guardian present. The record was ordered sealed except for purposes of appellate review. The Plaintiff was represented by . The Defendant was represented by . Decision After Trial (# 1) September 2004 American LegalNet, Inc. www.USCourtForms.com>>>> 2Index No.: Page 2. was the fully appointed law guardian, who made a written recommendation to the Court following the close of proofs. Proposed findings and final submissions from counsel were received through . The Court has had a full opportunityconsider the evidence to presented with respectto the issues in this proceeding, including the testimony offered and the exhibits received. The Court has further had an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the various witnesses called to testify and has made determinations on issues of credibility with respect to these witnesses. The Court now makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: I. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Grounds: 1. The parties were married on , in . 2. The action was commenced on . 3. The plaintiff is presently years old, born on . T h e defendant is years old, born on . Both parties appear to be in good health. 4. There are child(ren) born of this marriage, to-wit: 5. At the time of the commencement of this action, both plaintiff and defendant were residents of the State of , and both had continuously resided in the State of for a period in excess of one (1) year. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant are in the military service of the United States, and there is no judgment or decree of divorce, separation or annulment granted with respect this mto arriage by this Court or any other court of competent jurisdiction and no other actions are pending at the present time. 6. There exists no barrier, religious or otherwise, affecting the ability of either party to remarryDecision After Trial (# 1) September 2004 American LegalNet, Inc. www.USCourtForms.com>>>> 3Index No.: Page 3. subsequent to a divorce being granted by this Court. 7. Both parties agree to take prior to the entryof final judgm ent, all steps solely within their power to remove any barrier to the others remarriage following the divorce. 8. The Court finds that the defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily defaulted with respect to the grounds alleged by the plaintiff in his/her complaint. The Court further finds that the plaintiff knowingly, intelligentlynd voluntarily a defaulted with respect to the grounds alleged by the defendant in his/her counterclaim. Consequently, the plaintiff proved and the Court finds as fact those allegations set forth by plaintiff in paragraphs o f h is/her complaint dated to be filed herewith as part of the Judgment Roll. The Court further finds that the defendant proved and the Court finds as fact those allegations set forth by the defendant in paragraphs of his/her counterclaim dated to be filed herewith as part of the Judgment Roll. B. Disposition of Property 9. The parties have resided at since . This real property is the marital residence and is a marital asset. The parties continued to reside at the marital residence through trial. 10. The fair market value of the marital residence is $ which is an agreed value by stipulation of the parties. The marital residence is encumbered by a note and mortgage in the approximate amount of $ , which constitutes marital debt. 11. The parties also own Decision After Trial (# 1) September 2004 American LegalNet, Inc. www.USCourtForms.com>>>> 4Index No.: Page 4. 12. The parties own: 13. The Court finds the following to be additional marital assets: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 14. Plaintiff has vested pension rights with . Plaintiff has unvested rights with his/her present employer 15. Defendant has unvested pension rights through his/her em ployer 16. There was no evidence presented as to the value of these pensions. C. Spousal Maintenance, Child Custody and Child Support 17. Plaintiffs gross income for from his employment with was $ . Defendants gross income for 1995 from his/her employment with was $ . 18. Immediately prior to the commencement of trial, both parties through their attorneys Decision After Trial (# 1) September 2004 American LegalNet, Inc. www.USCourtForms.com>>>> 5Index No.: Page 5. voluntarily, affirmatively, and permanently waived any claim of maintenance or other spousal support as against the other. 19. The most contentious issue during the course of this matrimonial proceeding and trial was the issue of custody. There are as previously noted child(ren) of this marriage, . The child(ren) are in good health with no identifiable special needs. The children were interviewed by the Court in-camera with the law guardian present on . 20. In all child custody determinati, the best interests of the ons child remain the absolute, paramount consideration of the Court. Friderwitzer v. Friderwitzer , 55 N.Y.2d 89 (1982); Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167 (1982). The testimony at trial established and the Court finds that during the childrens upbringing and through the date of trial, . 21. Both parties enjoy an extended family, to wit: . 22. Both parties were raised in the faith and practice . 23. The Court agrees with the lawrd guiana s conclusion and so finds that both plaintiff and defendant truly care about their children and that each has developed a strong love and emotional bond. The children likewise expressed a deep love and respect for each parent during the in-camera interview conducted by the Court. Each child also expressed a strong desire to primarily reside with . Given the age of the children, this is a factor which the Court does consider together with all of the other factors in this case. It Decision After Trial