Published on: | by

Many married people with children ultimately decide to end their union. As such, in addition to relying on the courts to determine their rights and obligations with regard to assets and liabilities, they will look to the courts to decide how custody should be divided. While New York law is clear that custody determinations must be in a child’s best interests, in some cases, the court’s decisions do not reflect that and can be challenged. In a recent ruling in which the court amended the trial court’s order, a New York court discussed the grounds for overturning custody determinations. If you intend to seek a divorce and want to know how it may impact your parental rights, it is smart to speak to a New York child custody attorney promptly.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the parties were married in April 2013 and had two children together. In July 2018, they began living separately, and in February 2022, the husband initiated an action for divorce and ancillary relief. The wife responded with an answer, asserting various counterclaims, including one for child support. The court held a nonjury trial to address issues concerning custody, parental access, child support, and equitable distribution of marital property.

Continue reading

Published on: | by

It is not uncommon for New York couples to enter into prenuptial or post-nuptial agreements that define their rights and obligations with regard to property and assets in the event that they divorce. Marital agreements do not necessarily resolve all disputes over finances, though, as demonstrated in a recent New York ruling in which the parties disagreed over what constituted appropriate child support and maintenance awards. If you want to end your marriage, it is essential to understand your rights, and you should confer with a New York divorce attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the parties were married in March 2000 and have two children. In March 2012, they entered into a postnuptial agreement, which was later amended. In June 2012, the wife initiated a divorce action seeking ancillary relief. Following a nonjury trial, the trial court issued a ruling in October 2018, ruling on matters including maintenance, child support, equitable distribution, and attorneys’ fees. The judgment of divorce was finalized in December 2018. The wife then appealed specific portions of the divorce judgment. 

Continue reading

Published on: | by

Generally, in civil litigation, parties are expected to pay for their own legal counsel. There are some exceptions to the general rule, however. For example, pursuant to New York law, the party with fewer assets in a divorce action may be able to recover counsel fees from their spouse. In a recent New York ruling, the court discussed the factors weighed in determining whether to grant counsel fees before deciding to grant them to the wife. If you are considering pursuing a divorce, it is in your best interest to confer with a New York divorce attorney to determine your options.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the husband and wife were married in 1995 and had two children, both of whom were adults by the time of this action. The wife filed for divorce on August 25, 2017. The case moved slowly, with multiple motions and hearings extending the litigation. One of the key early motions was filed by the wife in June 2020, seeking $25,000 in interim counsel fees, leading the court to order the husband, as the monied spouse, to pay her $20,000 for legal fees.

Reportedly, the case continued with further motions and cross-motions, including disputes over expert testimony and additional counsel fees. The court ultimately precluded the husband from using an expert report at trial due to late submission, a decision later reversed in 2023. Both parties filed numerous motions, including one from the wife seeking $65,000 in additional counsel fees in 2024. Although a settlement stipulation resolved many issues, the counsel fee issue remained for the court to decide. Continue reading

Published on: | by

In many New York divorce actions, one party will seek child support and maintenance from the other while the dissolution is pending. The courts generally require both parties to submit documentation of their assets and liabilities prior to granting such requests. If a party fails to offer such proofs when making the requests but provides them at a later date, the courts can still consider them as long as the delayed presentation does not prejudice the opposing party, as discussed in a recent New York ruling. If you are contemplating ending your marriage, it is prudent to speak to a New York divorce lawyer about your options.

History of the Case

It is reported that the wife initiated a divorce action in June 2021, seeking both a dissolution of the marriage and ancillary relief. Several months later, in October 2021, the wife filed a motion requesting temporary spousal support, temporary child support, and interim counsel fees. The trial court issued an order granting the wife’s requests. The husband, disagreeing with this decision, appealed the order, specifically challenging the award of temporary spousal maintenance, temporary child support, and interim counsel fees.

Evidence Sufficient to Sustain a Request for Temporary Support in a Divorce Action

On appeal, the court reviewed the trial court’s decision, focusing on the procedural requirements for such motions in divorce actions. In doing so, the court noted that under the relevant New York court rules, a party seeking maintenance, child support, or counsel fees must submit a sworn statement of net worth along with a signed retainer agreement when making their motion. Continue reading

Published on: | by

New Yorkers who decide to end their marriage will often attempt to expedite their divorce proceedings via stipulation of settlement agreements. While such agreements can allow for an efficient and amicable resolution, they must be crafted with due care, as any ambiguities could lead to disputes and litigation down the line, as demonstrated in a recent New York divorce action. If you have questions about your options with regard to divorce, it is smart to confer with a New York divorce lawyer as soon as possible.

Factual Setting

It is alleged that the husband and the wife were married in March 2000 and had one daughter, born in November 2003. The parties subsequently divorced in 2007. They resolved their financial and custody issues through a stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into their final judgment of divorce in December 2007. Under this stipulation, the wife was granted exclusive occupancy of the marital residence until its sale, with the husband responsible for monthly mortgage payments, real estate taxes, and homeowner’s insurance. Additionally, the husband was required to cover 57% of their daughter’s college expenses, with no specific provision regarding who would pay the remaining 43%. The husband paid 100% of the tuition costs up to the date of the litigation.

It is reported that the husband sought enforcement of the stipulation regarding the marital residence and requested credits for payments made towards homeowner’s insurance, property taxes, and their daughter’s college tuition. The wife filed a cross-motion contesting these credits and seeking additional credits for mortgage principal reductions. The trial court granted the husband’s motion, awarding him credits for the insurance and tax payments and for the child’s tuition while denying the wife’s cross-motion entirely. The wife appealed. Continue reading

Published on: | by

Generally, under New York law, any income or property a person acquires while they are married is deemed a marital asset. There are exceptions to the general rule, though, for things like property obtained via inheritance. While money from an inheritance can be converted to marital property, a person arguing it should be considered a joint asset must support their position via convincing evidence; otherwise, their argument will likely be rejected, as demonstrated in a recent New York case. If you or your spouse are weighing whether to end your marriage, it would benefit you to speak with a New York divorce lawyer about your options.

History of the Case

It is reported that the husband and wife married in 2013. During the marriage, the wife received a $125,000 inheritance from her grandfather, which she used towards the $160,000 purchase of their marital residence the following year. The remaining $35,000 was covered by a mortgage. Notably, the wife provided the husband a “gift letter” stating that the $125,000 was an outright gift to him so that he could demonstrate he had sufficient funds to purchase the home.

Allegedly, the husband commenced a divorce action in 2021. The trial court issued a judgment of divorce that included the distribution of marital property and awarded maintenance to the wife. The husband appealed the judgment, particularly challenging the trial court’s decisions on the classification of the $125,000 inheritance as separate property, imposing responsibility on him for the mortgage, and the awarding of maintenance to the wife. Continue reading

Published on: | by

In New York divorce actions, it is not uncommon for one party to seek spousal maintenance from the other. The duration and amount of such maintenance are generally left up to the discretion of the trial court. If the trial court’s decision clearly constitutes an error, though, it may be modified on appeal, as demonstrated in a recent New York opinion issued in a dissolution case. If you intend to end your marriage, it is smart to talk to a New York divorce lawyer as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the wife filed a divorce action. The trial court subsequently ended the husband and wife’s marriage via a judgment of divorce entered in September 2019. The judgment followed a nonjury trial and included several key decisions.

Allegedly, the court awarded the wife was awarded $1,500 per month in maintenance retroactively to the date the parties executed a stipulation dividing six parcels of real property. The court also granted the wife $25,000 in counsel fees. The court did not grant the husband credits for certain pendente lite payments. Both parties appealed. Continue reading

Published on: | by

It is not uncommon for divorcing parents to enter into stipulation agreements that set forth their parental rights or for the courts to incorporate such agreements into divorce decrees, rendering them enforceable. Even if parents believe the terms of stipulations are suitable when they enter into them, circumstances can arise that necessitate a modification. Recently, a New York court explained what constitutes a significant enough change to warrant a modification in a case in which it ultimately denied the father’s request.  If you are interested in modifying the terms of your custody arrangement, it is in your best interest to meet with a New York child custody lawyer promptly.

Background of the Case

It is alleged that the parties were married and had one child together before divorcing. They entered into a Stipulation of Settlement in August 2017, which the court incorporated but did not merge with their Judgment of Divorce. The Stipulation provided for joint legal custody of their child, with equal decision-making authority and a detailed parenting schedule. Initially, the father had alternating parenting schedules until the child turned five, after which his schedule was modified. The agreement included provisions for holiday and summer vacation schedules, child support, additional expenses, and life insurance requirements. The father was also required to comply with court orders regarding therapy.

It is reported that the father sought additional parenting time, claiming changes in his employment and relocation to New Jersey due to COVID-19 as significant changes in circumstances. The mother opposed the father’s request, arguing the father’s application was procedurally defective and that no sufficient change in circumstances existed to warrant modification. She also alleged that the father engaged in emotional and physical abuse against the child and provided supporting evidence. Additionally, the mother cross-moved for enforcement of the Stipulation’s provisions regarding life insurance add-on expenses, and sought counsel fees, claiming the father owed support arrears and had not complied with the therapy and life insurance requirements. Continue reading

Published on: | by

When a couple with children decides to end their marriage, their primary concern is often determining an arrangement that best suits their children’s needs. In many cases, this will involve an agreement to live in a certain geographical area. The courts will typically adopt such an agreement if they find it to be in a child’s best interest. As demonstrated in a recent New York case, if a parent unilaterally decides to violate a geographical order or agreement and relocate a child, it may negatively impact the parent’s custody rights. If you have concerns about safeguarding your parental rights, it is advisable to speak to a New York child custody lawyer.

Case Setting

It is alleged that the mother and the father, parents of three children, entered into a separation agreement in June 2019, which was modified by an addendum in November 2019. They agreed to share joint legal custody, with the mother having primary physical custody and the father having specific parenting time. They also agreed not to move more than 50 miles from their current residence without court consent or written consent from the other parent. A final judgment of divorce in March 2020 incorporated this agreement and addendum.

Reportedly, in May 2022, the mother filed a petition seeking sole legal custody, claiming a breakdown in communication. In August 2022, the father filed a petition for modification, arguing that the mother had moved beyond the agreed 50-mile limit to enroll the children in a new school and sought primary physical custody. The trial court dismissed the mother’s petition, finding no breakdown in communication, but granted the father’s petition for the oldest child, allowing him to continue attending his former school. The younger children’s custodial arrangement remained unchanged, and the court set a parenting time schedule for all three children. The mother appealed the trial court’s decision. Continue reading

Published on: | by

New York law demands that parents support their children financially, and in many shared custody cases, the courts will order one parent to pay the other child support, subject to the terms of a support order. The law also recognizes that circumstances can change over time and allows parties to seek modifications of support orders. The courts will only grant such requests if the moving party offers sufficient evidence demonstrating an amendment is warranted, though, as discussed in a recent New York ruling. If you have questions about child support, it is advisable to speak with a New York child support lawyer.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the mother and the father, who were divorced, shared joint custody of their minor child, born in 2004. In March 2020, the father filed a request for a modification of the support order due to termination of his employment. Subsequently, in September 2021, both parties agreed to reduce the father’s child support obligations. In May 2022, after being laid off from another job, the father sought modification of the September 2021 order, citing a “substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances.” He requested suspension of his support payments until he found new employment and that the mother be required to pay him child support. The father amended his petition in July 2022 to include a claim that a “temporary medical emergency” prevented him from working for an extended period.

Allegedly, the Support Magistrate dismissed the petitions, concluding that the father had not demonstrated sufficient efforts to obtain employment or provided competent medical evidence to prove his inability to work. The father subsequently objected to this decision, arguing that the Support Magistrate did not adequately consider his involuntary job loss, job-seeking efforts, and the impact of his injury on his ability to work. The trial court denied these objections, and the father appealed. 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 – 2024, Rudyuk Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design