Subscribe to Our Blog

Subscribe Now

Published on: | by

Custody battles often unfold in emotionally charged environments, but New York courts are not swayed by accusations alone. When one parent seeks to upend a longstanding custodial arrangement, they must present compelling evidence that a material change in circumstances has occurred and that transferring custody serves the child’s best interests. A recent New York decision illustrates the demanding threshold for modifying custody and reaffirms that courts prioritize a child’s emotional well-being, consistency, and stability above all else. If you are navigating a contested custody matter or seeking to enforce or modify a prior order, it is essential to consult with a knowledgeable New York family law attorney who can guide you through the process with clarity and strategic insight.

Case Setting

It is reported that the parties, who were formerly married, are the parents of one child born in 2010. The parties’ marriage was dissolved by judgment in 2018 pursuant to a stipulation that granted the mother sole legal and physical custody, subject to the father’s parenting time. The arrangement continued under several family court orders until 2022, when the father filed a petition seeking to modify custody and obtain sole legal and primary physical custody of the child. The mother cross-petitioned for sole legal custody.

Allegedly, the matter proceeded to a hearing during which the father testified that the mother’s behavior was erratic and detrimental to the child. The father maintained that the child would benefit from a more structured and stable environment in his home. In contrast, the mother refuted the claims and presented testimony that she had consistently supported the child’s relationship with the father, ensured educational and medical needs were met, and provided a consistent and nurturing home environment. Continue reading

Published on: | by

When parents seek intervention from the courts regarding child support, the courts must determine not only what a parent earns on paper, but also what that parent could earn based on qualifications, past experience, and realistic employment potential. A recent decision from a New York court highlights how courts approach disputes involving upward and downward modifications of child support, specifically, when a parent has the credentials and prior income history to support a higher imputed income. If you are seeking to modify your child support obligations or enforce a prior agreement, it is critical to speak with an experienced New York divorce attorney to determine your options.

Case Setting

It is reported that the parties were divorced by judgment entered in April 2012, following a separation agreement reached in December 2009. Allegedly, that agreement provided for joint legal custody of the parties’ two children, with residential custody granted to the mother. It is further reported that under the original agreement, the father was obligated to pay monthly basic child support, as well as cover the youngest child’s high school tuition and 30% of college expenses.

Allegedly, the parties agreed to modify this arrangement in 2017, reducing the father’s basic support to $350 per month and eliminating his responsibility for tuition and other add-on costs, based on an income stipulation of just $20,000. Subsequently, the mother filed a petition in December 2020 for an upward modification of the father’s support obligation. The father responded with a petition in January 2023 seeking a downward modification and credit for child support arrears. Continue reading

Published on: | by

Allegations of fraud in post-divorce disputes can raise high-stakes questions about fairness, financial rights, and the enforceability of settlement agreements. However, while dissatisfaction with the terms of a divorce may lead one party to challenge a signed agreement, New York law sets a demanding legal standard for setting aside such contracts. A recent ruling from a New York court sheds light on how courts evaluate claims of fraudulent inducement, particularly when the stipulation language directly contradicts the allegations. If you are facing a legal battle over a marital settlement, it is in your best interest to contact a New York divorce attorney as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the parties married in 2004 and later divorced following the wife’s filing for divorce in January 2019. During the course of their marriage, they resided in a home in Westhampton Beach. The parties did not have children. The divorce action was resolved by a stipulation of settlement executed in August 2019. This original stipulation designated the husband as the monied spouse, required him to pay maintenance to the wife, and included provisions for the sale of the marital residence and the handling of liens tied to the husband’s debts. The stipulation was incorporated, but not merged, into the judgment of divorce entered in March 2021.

It is reported that the parties later executed a second agreement in May 2021, referred to as a post-judgment stipulation, which modified the original settlement. Under this agreement, the husband waived all rights to the marital residence and agreed to pay additional maintenance. The wife subsequently sold the marital home in February 2022. The husband filed a new action in March 2022 seeking to set aside the post-judgment stipulation, claiming he was fraudulently induced to sign it. He contended that the wife had misrepresented the status of their divorce and the value of the marital home, and that he relied on those alleged misstatements when waiving his rights to the property. Continue reading

Published on: | by

When parents cannot agree on custody arrangements during a divorce, New York courts are tasked with making decisions that serve the child’s best interests, often against a backdrop of heightened emotions and complex family dynamics. A recent decision from a New York court illustrates how courts evaluate caregiving history, parental cooperation, and the child’s expressed preferences when awarding legal and physical custody. For parents navigating a custody dispute, the ruling provides a meaningful look into how courts assess competing claims for legal authority and residential parenting time. If you are involved in a custody dispute or divorce involving minor children, it is crucial to consult with a knowledgeable New York family law attorney to understand how these legal standards apply to your unique circumstances.

History of the Case

It is reported that the parties were married in 2002 and had three children during the course of their marriage. Allegedly, the wife filed for divorce in 2012, and the matter proceeded to a nonjury trial several years later. The trial, which spanned multiple dates between 2018 and 2019, addressed various contested issues, including child custody, child support, maintenance, and equitable distribution. At the time of the judgment in 2023, only two of the parties’ three children were still minors.

Continue reading

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

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

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

Русскоязычный Адвокат по Разводам в Нью-Йорке

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