Published on: | by

Divorces involving long-term marriages and significant financial entanglements often spark contentious disputes over spousal maintenance and the classification of assets. These cases can raise complex questions about what is fair and sustainable when one spouse has built a lifestyle around economic dependence and domestic contributions. A recent decision issued in a New York divorce matter demonstrates how courts apply nuanced legal standards to determine whether a maintenance award should extend into retirement years and how personal property, such as valuable jewelry, is treated when marital funds have been used to acquire it. If you are facing similarly high-stakes divorce litigation, it is advisable to consult a skilled New York divorce attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is reported that the parties were married in 1998 and had one child together, born in 2001. Allegedly, in 2012, the wife initiated a divorce action seeking ancillary relief, which included spousal maintenance and equitable distribution. The case ultimately proceeded to a nonjury trial on these issues. During the course of the proceedings, the wife requested ongoing maintenance and sought classification of certain personal property, including jewelry, as separate rather than marital property. The trial court issued a judgment in 2020 that, among other determinations, awarded the wife monthly maintenance and resolved the classification of the disputed jewelry.

Allegedly, the judgment granted the wife $3,500 per month in spousal maintenance, payable until she reaches the age of 67 or qualifies for full Social Security benefits or until her remarriage or the death of either party. The court further determined the jewelry in question was marital property subject to equitable distribution and declined to direct the husband to maintain health insurance coverage for the wife. The wife appealed these aspects of the trial court’s decision. Continue reading

Published on: | by

In high-net-worth New York divorces, disputes over spousal maintenance, child support, and the division of valuable real estate often hinge on how courts weigh factors such as earning capacity, parenting roles, and lifestyle needs. Complications can arise, however, when one party challenges the fairness of a property award or seeks to impute income based on education and potential, even when the other parent has assumed the bulk of child-rearing responsibilities. A recent decision issued in a New York divorce action highlights how trial courts balance these factors to craft equitable outcomes. If you are involved in a divorce involving unequal incomes, substantial assets, or questions of income imputation, it is critical to speak with a knowledgeable New York divorce attorney about how the law may apply to your circumstances.

History of the Case

It is reported that the parties were married in 2010 and had three children over the course of the marriage. Allegedly, the wife filed for divorce in June 2021, seeking custody, spousal maintenance, child support, and other relief. The husband counterclaimed for divorce and requested similar remedies. The parties subsequently stipulated to joint legal and shared physical custody, agreed to valuations of their two real properties (a marital residence and a lake house), and stipulated to their 2021 incomes.

Continue reading

Published on: | by

In New York’s family law courts, jurisdictional challenges in matrimonial actions often turn on where the parties and children reside, and whether any parallel litigation is pending in a foreign forum. But complications can arise when one spouse seeks dismissal of a New York divorce on the grounds that another proceeding is already underway abroad and the other spouse denies it in sworn filings, as demonstrated in a recent New York divorce action. If you are seeking or defending against dismissal in a New York matrimonial action, you should speak to an experienced New York attorney about your options.

Factual and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the parties were married in the Dominican Republic in 2010 and have two minor children. Allegedly, both children currently reside with the wife, who was granted temporary custody and permission to relocate to Connecticut pursuant to orders issued in Bronx County Family Court. The husband, who resides in New York, has been awarded visitation rights under a separate order.

Allegedly, the wife commenced a divorce proceeding in the Dominican Republic in 2022, which was later dismissed in 2023. It is reported that in that same year, the husband initiated his own divorce action in the Dominican Republic. However, in April 2024, the wife commenced the present divorce action in Bronx Supreme Court and attested in her verified complaint that no other matrimonial action was pending. It is alleged that the wife later admitted this statement was false, as the husband’s Dominican proceeding had not yet been dismissed at the time her complaint was filed. Continue reading

Published on: | by

In New York’s family courts, child support enforcement is a serious matter, particularly when one parent repeatedly fails to comply with their obligations. But what happens when the amount owed depends not only on payment history, but also on how a settlement agreement is punctuated? A recent decision from a New York court highlights the complex interplay between contract interpretation and support enforcement, where the court was asked to determine whether a father in substantial arrears could benefit from reduced payments based on a disputed reading of a stipulation’s grammar. The outcome hinged not just on the facts, but on the meaning of a semi-colon, a comma, and the obligations they modified. If you want to enforce or challenge a support order in New York, it is vital to work with an experienced family law attorney who can ensure your rights are protected at every step.

History of the Case

It is reported that the parties divorced in 2006 pursuant to a judgment incorporating a stipulation of settlement that required the father to pay unallocated monthly child support, increasing over time. Support was to continue until both children were emancipated, defined to extend through age 22 if they remained full-time college students.

Allegedly, the mother has been forced to seek enforcement repeatedly due to the father’s persistent noncompliance with his support obligations. Despite a 2011 downward modification, the mother contends the father resumed underpaying and failing to reimburse add-on expenses. In 2018, she filed a motion claiming over $130,000 in arrears, prompting the father to pay approximately $140,000. Continue reading

Published on: | by

In New York family law matters, stipulations of settlement incorporated into divorce judgments are treated with the same force and effect as contracts. The courts typically uphold these agreements unless a party can demonstrate ambiguity, fraud, or a substantial change in circumstances. A recent decision issued in a New York divorce case highlights the challenges of attempting to revise financial obligations absent clear legal justification, as the court ultimately found that the stipulation of settlement in question remained enforceable and that no grounds for modification existed. If you are involved in a dispute over the enforcement of a divorce agreement, you should talk to a New York family law attorney about your options.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the parties were married in 2005 and later entered into a stipulation of settlement in 2013. Pursuant to the stipulation, the mother was awarded sole legal and residential custody of their three children, and the father was obligated to pay monthly child support, along with the children’s private school tuition.

Allegedly, the father later filed a petition seeking a modification of his support obligations. He asserted that a change in the children’s living arrangements, specifically that the oldest child had come to reside with him, warranted an award of basic child support from the mother. He also reportedly requested that the mother be ordered to contribute to the private school tuition for the oldest child or, alternatively, that his monthly tuition obligation be reduced to reflect that he was only responsible for the younger two children’s tuition. Continue reading

Published on: | by

In New York’s family court, missing a single procedural step can mean the difference between having your voice heard and having your objections dismissed outright. This is especially true in child and spousal support matters, where orders for payment are legally binding and strictly enforced. When a party fails to pay what they owe, the consequences can include steep judgments, wage garnishments, and even incarceration. However, those consequences can be difficult to challenge if the proper procedures are not followed, as illustrated in a recent New York decision. If you want to enforce or challenge a support order in New York, it is vital to work with an experienced family law attorney who can ensure your rights are protected at every step.

History of the Case

It is reported that the parties were divorced by a judgment entered in 2016, which directed the father to pay both child support and spousal support to the mother retroactively to mid-2011. Several years later, the mother initiated a violation proceeding under Article 4 of the Family Court Act, alleging that the father had failed to meet his support obligations for a significant period of time. Specifically, she sought enforcement of unpaid support accruing from June 24, 2011, through February 1, 2019.

Allegedly, after a full hearing, the Support Magistrate found that the father had willfully violated the existing support order and issued a directive for a monetary judgment. The judgment entered in favor of the mother totaled $85,769.35 in unpaid support. Continue reading

Published on: | by

In New York divorce proceedings, a properly executed stipulation of settlement can carry significant weight in determining the financial and custodial obligations of the parties. Specifically, once they are incorporated into a judgment of divorce, such agreements are treated as enforceable contracts, and courts will generally uphold them absent evidence of ambiguity, fraud, or unfairness. As such, it is important that such agreements are clear and entered into with thought and consideration, as they are difficult to challenge, as demonstrated in a recent New York divorce action. If you are considering ending your marriage, it is crucial to work with a skilled New York divorce attorney to protect your interests.

History of the Case

It is reported that the husband and wife were married in 2018 and had one child together. The wife commenced an action for divorce and ancillary relief in 2021. In February 2022, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement resolving issues, including legal custody and child support. This agreement was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce entered in June 2023 by the Supreme Court, Queens County.

Allegedly, the stipulation provided for joint legal custody of the child and established a detailed parenting time schedule. The husband was granted overnight parenting time two nights per week and seven hours of access on Sundays. The stipulation further required the husband to pay child support in the amount of $1,560 per month directly to the wife. Continue reading

Published on: | by

Divorce and marital separation agreements are often legally binding contracts that courts are reluctant to set aside without strong justification. However, disputes can arise when one party later challenges the fairness of an agreement, particularly in cases involving financial disclosures, legal representation, and claims of unconscionability. A recent decision issued by a New York court demonstrates the legal standards that govern the rescission of separation agreements and the burden a challenging party must meet to succeed. If you are contemplating ending your marriage, you should seek the advice of an experienced New York divorce attorney as soon as possible.

Case Background

It is reported that the wife initiated an action seeking to rescind a marital separation agreement that had been incorporated, but not merged, into the parties’ judgment of divorce. The wife argued that the agreement should be set aside based on the husband’s failure to disclose financial information, her lack of legal representation at the time of execution, and the alleged unfairness of the terms.

It is alleged that the husband moved for summary judgment to dismiss the wife’s complaint. The trial court, after conducting a fact-finding hearing, granted the husband’s motion, prompting the wife to appeal. The wife contended that the agreement was unenforceable due to the absence of financial disclosure, her lack of knowledge about maintenance guidelines, and the substantive unfairness of the agreement’s terms, particularly concerning property division and spousal support. Continue reading

Published on: | by

Divorce cases are often fraught with emotional and legal complexities, but some disputes extend beyond custody and asset division, raising ethical and professional concerns that can impact the very foundation of the legal process. When an attorney’s representation is called into question, courts must weigh a party’s right to legal counsel against the necessity of maintaining fair proceedings. In a recent New York decision issued in a divorce case, the court addressed the highly contentious issue of attorney disqualification, offering insight into the standards that govern conflicts of interest in legal representation. If you have questions about your rights with regard to divorce, it is smart to speak to a skilled New York divorce attorney as soon as possible.

Case Setting

It is reported that the wife filed for divorce in February 2023, marking the second such action between the parties. The first divorce, filed in 2015, was litigated extensively until 2018 when the parties reconciled and discontinued the proceedings.

It is alleged that the wife sought a protective order to prevent the husband from sharing litigation details with third parties and requested the disqualification of the husband’s attorney. The wife claimed that the husband’s attorney represented the husband’s brother in a malicious prosecution lawsuit against her, creating a conflict of interest. Allegedly, the wife argued that the husband and his brother had a history of coordinated harassment and that their attorney’s representation in both matters would disadvantage her in discovery. Continue reading

Published on: | by

Few legal battles are as emotionally charged as international child custody disputes. When one parent relocates a child to another country without the other parent’s consent, it raises serious legal and ethical concerns. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction exists to prevent wrongful removals and ensure that custody disputes are resolved in the child’s home country. A case recently decided by a New York court highlights the importance of legal custody agreements and the challenges parents face when one party disregards a court order. If you are involved in a child custody dispute that extends beyond national borders, it is in your best interest to meet with an experienced New York family law attorney to discuss your rights.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the father filed a petition under the Hague Convention, seeking the return of his son to Turkey after the mother relocated with the child to the United States without his approval. The parents, who divorced in Turkey, had a custody agreement incorporated into their divorce decree, which granted the mother sole custody. However, allegedly, the agreement also contained specific provisions requiring the father’s approval for major decisions, including the child’s relocation, schooling, and healthcare.

Allegedly despite these provisions, the mother moved the child to the United States without obtaining the father’s consent. The father argued that this move violated his custodial rights under Turkish law, amounting to wrongful retention under the Hague Convention. The mother, in response, contended that her sole custody status in Turkey granted her the unilateral right to decide where the child lived. Continue reading

Contact Information
20 Vesey St #400
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 706-2001
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2019 – 2025, Rudyuk Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design