CHEAT’S FAIR SHARE

‘Still deserves’ apt.

A former Ernst & Young partner who spent a year in jail for leaking insider information to his AshleyMadison.com 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.