‘Still de­serves’ apt.

New York Post - - NEWS - By JU­LIA MARSH

A for­mer Ernst & Young part­ner who spent a year in jail for leak­ing in­sider in­for­ma­tion to his Ash­leyMadi­ mis­tress just won a larger share of the Park Av­enue pad he shared with his ex-wife — be­cause his phi­lan­der­ing wasn’t that big a deal, a court ruled.

Last year, a lower court judge awarded spurned spouse Linda Gans­man 75 per­cent of the $4.75 mil­lion apart­ment she shared with James Gans­man and their two sons.

Linda was ready to buy her ex out of the prop­erty on Park Av­enue and 94th Street, but a Man­hat­tan ap­peals panel re­duced her share to 60 per­cent in a rul­ing re­leased Tues­day. The re­duc­tion amounts to a $700,000 dif­fer­ence.

The five-judge panel found that “the husband’s adul­ter­ous con­duct is not suf­fi­ciently egre­gious and shock­ing to the con­science to jus­tify mak­ing an un­equal dis­tri­bu­tion of the mar­i­tal home.”

James Gans­man, 57, had been seek­ing a 50-50 split, but the ap­peals court re­fused, not­ing that Linda, also 57 — who had been a stay-at-home mom — was forced to go back to work af­ter his con­vic­tion.

Dur­ing that time one of their sons suf­fered “sig­nif­i­cant emo­tional is­sues” and “psy­chi­atric is­sues,” ac­cord­ing to the rul­ing.

James Gans­man was earn­ing $1.25 mil­lion a year when he re­signed in 2007 be­cause of a Se­cu­ri­ties and Ex­change Com­mis­sion in­ves­ti­ga­tion. He was charged with con­spir­acy and in­sider trad­ing in 2010.

“At trial, the husband main­tained his in­no­cence and claimed that a woman with whom he was hav­ing an af­fair stole his Black­Berry and used the in­for­ma­tion to en­gage in in­sider trad­ing,” the de­ci­sion says.

The other woman, who’d met James Gans­man on a Web site ca­ter­ing to adul­ter­ers, rat­ted him out to duck jail time. He was re­leased from a fed­eral lockup in 2011, but was hit with a re­strain­ing order two years later af­ter his wife tes­ti­fied that he bit his son’s leg.

At­tor­neys for Linda Gans­man did not re­turn calls for com­ment.

Her ex-husband’s lawyer, Matthew C. Kesten, said he was “grat­i­fied” by the de­ci­sion, but added that his client shouldn’t have been pe­nal­ized for his be­hav­ior.

“In terms of mar­i­tal in­fi­delity the law is clear that you don’t take it into con­sid­er­a­tion when con­sid­er­ing eq­ui­table dis­tri­bu­tion,” Kesten said.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.