Divorce

Published on: December 19, 2024

Court required plaintiff to pay 100% of specific marital debts, denying requested credits. Bari v. Bari, 161 N.Y.S.3d 97 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involved a dispute over the allocation of marital debt during divorce proceedings. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, addressed the plaintiff’s responsibility for specific debts and denied his requests for credits on certain payments. The plaintiff appealed, challenging these decisions. The appellate court reviewed the case and made modifications to the trial court’s judgment.

Background Facts

The plaintiff and defendant were married in 1997 and had three children. Throughout the marriage, the plaintiff served as the primary earner, managing most of the family’s financial obligations, while the defendant focused on homemaking and childcare.

Published on: December 17, 2024

Appellate Division upheld equitable distribution awarding defendant one-third value of marital jewelry business. Kamm v. Kamm, 120 N.Y.S.3d 815 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

The equitable distribution of marital property and the award of maintenance are central issues in many divorce cases. A case from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, involving a long-term marriage and disputes over the division of a jewelry business and the awarding of maintenance, provides a clear illustration of these issues.

Background Facts

The plaintiff and defendant were married in 1984 and had two children who were emancipated by the time of the trial. Early in the marriage, the plaintiff sold the parties’ townhouse and the defendant’s engagement ring to open a jewelry business. This business became the family’s primary source of income. The defendant left her job as a credit investigator to focus on homemaking and raising the children.

Published on: December 15, 2024

Court addressed restrictions on communication and social media in divorce. Kassenoff v. Kassenoff, 213 A.D.3d 822 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

Divorce proceedings often involve disputes that extend beyond financial and custodial issues, sometimes requiring courts to address matters like communication and speech. In a case decided by the Supreme Court of Westchester County, the court reviewed restrictions on the defendant’s communication with employees of the plaintiff’s employer and on both parties’ use of social media. The defendant challenged these restrictions, claiming they violated her constitutional rights.

Background Facts

The parties in this case were involved in a divorce action. During the proceedings, issues arose concerning the defendant’s communications with employees of the plaintiff’s employer. The plaintiff’s employer was also the defendant’s former employer, and the plaintiff alleged that these communications interfered with his professional life. Additionally, concerns were raised about the potential impact of social media posts by either party on their children and their reputations.

Published on: November 15, 2024

Court restricted a father’s social media posts to protect child’s privacy and family relationships. Walsh v. Russell, 214 A.D.3d 890 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involved a dispute between parents over custody of their child, which led to additional issues related to the father’s use of social media. The Family Court addressed concerns raised by the mother and the attorney for the child (AFC) regarding the father’s social media activity, which included sharing details about the custody proceedings and disparaging the mother and her family.

The mother sought sole legal and physical custody, while the father engaged in public commentary about the case on social media platforms. The father allegedly posted blogs and images of the child, as well as statements criticizing the mother and her family. The attorney for the child filed a motion requesting that the court prohibit the father from continuing these activities, arguing that they were not in the child’s best interests. The motion also sought an order directing the father to delete all existing content related to the case. The father did not oppose the motion or appear at the related hearing. The Family Court granted the motion and ordered the father to refrain from posting about the case or the mother’s family and to delete any existing related content. The father appealed, arguing that the restrictions were overly broad and violated his First Amendment rights.

Question Before the Court

Published on: October 26, 2024

Property division terms in prenuptial agreement upheld. Schlosser v. Schlosser, 219 A.D.3d 1455 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a case involving the division of property after a divorce, the defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court of Queens County, which limited her share of proceeds from the sale of the marital residence to $700,000. The court also denied her request to have the residence recognized as her separate property.

Background Facts

The parties married on July 8, 2011, and had two children. Prior to their marriage, they signed a prenuptial agreement that outlined how their marital and separate property would be divided in case of divorce. In this agreement, a “termination event,” including divorce, would trigger the division of marital property equally between them. However, the marital residence and any debt related to it were excluded from this equal division provision.

Published on: October 24, 2024

On appeal, court determined wife should have been awarded alimony. Diaz v. Gonzalez, 984 N.Y.S.2d 65 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

by Stephen Bilkis

Not surprisingly, issues related to property distribution, spousal maintenance, and child support are among the most contested issues during a divorce. Diaz v. Gonzalez, 984 N.Y.S.2d 65 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014) involved a defendant appealing a judgment from the Supreme Court in Queens County regarding maintenance and child support.

Background Facts

The parties in Diaz v. Gonzalez, married on December 28, 1998. The plaintiff moved out of their shared home in September 2005. In March 2010, the plaintiff commenced divorce proceedings. The defendant responded to the action, asserting counterclaims that sought child support and spousal maintenance.

Published on: October 20, 2024

Equitable distribution requires full financial disclosure by both parities. C.M.S. v. W.T.S., 37 Misc. 3d 1228 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a matrimonial trial that spanned several years, a couple’s divorce action finally came to court after years of separation and failed settlement attempts. C.M.S. v. W.T.S., 37 Misc. 3d 1228 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012) involved significant issues, including determining how to distribute marital property.

Background Facts

The couple in this case had been separated since 2007, and their divorce action began in 2008. Throughout the divorce proceedings, both parties exhibited a lack of urgency in settling their financial matters, leading to numerous pretrial conferences without significant progress.

Published on: October 20, 2024

Court finds that wasteful dissipation of assets by wife would impact equitable distribution. Singh v. Singh, 36 Misc. 3d 1218 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)

by Stephen Bilkis

Singh v. Singh, 36 Misc. 3d 1218 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012) involved a divorce action in Queens, New York. The Plaintiff, the wife, initiated the case in 2009, seeking an absolute divorce and additional relief related to financial support, property division, and child custody. One issue that was raised was asset dissipation. Asset dissipation occurs when one spouse improperly uses or transfers marital assets in a way that depletes their value, often in anticipation of divorce or without the consent of the other spouse. This can include excessive spending, selling assets below market value, or mismanaging joint finances. In divorce cases, courts may consider evidence of dissipation when determining the equitable distribution of marital property.

Background Facts

The Plaintiff and Defendant married in 1997 and had two children. During their marriage, they lived together in a house jointly purchased by the Defendant and his father. The Defendant used both his separate savings and marital assets to contribute toward the mortgage on the marital home. Over time, the couple’s financial situation became more complicated as the Defendant and his extended family engaged in additional real estate and business investments. Both parties contributed to the household and its upkeep until they separated in 2006.

Published on: October 17, 2024

New York court modified maintenance and equitable distribution from a foreign divorce judgment. Sufia v. Khalique, 189 A.D.3d 1499 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

When a divorce occurs in another country, New York courts can address unresolved issues such as property division, child support, and spousal maintenance. Foreign divorce judgments are generally recognized under New York law if they comply with due process and do not violate public policy. However, New York courts can independently adjudicate ancillary matters not addressed in the foreign judgment. Parties may file actions in New York to resolve these issues, following domestic legal standards such as equitable distribution and child support guidelines.

Sufia v. Khalique, 189 A.D.3d 1499 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020) involved a matrimonial action concerning the equitable distribution of marital property, child support, and maintenance following a divorce granted in Bangladesh. The judgment, rendered by the Supreme Court, Queens County, addressed these issues after a nonjury trial. The defendant appealed the judgment, challenging its provisions.

Background Facts

Published on: October 15, 2024

Court adjusted asset distribution by rejecting a $550,000 dissipation claim for a car wash purchase. Kirshner v. Kirshner, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 3475 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

by Stephen Bilkis

Dissipation of marital assets refers to the wasteful, reckless, or intentional use of marital funds for purposes unrelated to the marriage, often occurring during or shortly before divorce proceedings. Examples include excessive spending, gambling, or transferring assets to conceal them. In New York, the spouse alleging dissipation must prove it by showing that the other spouse’s actions diminished marital property unjustifiably. Courts evaluate the intent and circumstances, distinguishing between poor financial outcomes and reckless behavior. Dissipation claims can significantly affect equitable distribution, as courts may compensate the wronged spouse by adjusting the division of remaining marital assets.

Background Facts

The couple, married in 2001, had three children and signed a prenuptial agreement before marriage. During the marriage, the defendant used marital funds to purchase a car wash. The plaintiff later argued that this investment was a wasteful dissipation of marital assets, claiming it was a poor financial decision and made without proper justification. The defendant contended the car wash was intended to generate income for the family and provide a workplace for the plaintiff after his release from prison.