Subscribe to Our Blog

Subscribe Now

Published on: | by

Custody disputes can become particularly fraught in high-conflict divorces, especially when one parent seeks to modify a previously agreed-upon arrangement. New York courts, however, are generally reluctant to disrupt a negotiated parenting plan absent clear proof that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred. A recent New York ruling illustrates the legal standard for post-judgment modification and demonstrates the court’s emphasis on stability and procedural fairness in custody and co-parenting matters. If you are seeking to modify a parenting agreement or facing contentious litigation over decision-making authority, it is critical to consult a skilled New York family law attorney who can guide you through the legal framework and advocate effectively for your interests.

History of the Case

It is reported that the parties entered into a comprehensive 73-page stipulation of settlement in 2021, following extensive negotiation and with the assistance of counsel. This agreement granted the parents joint legal custody and nearly equal parenting time, which both parties affirmed as being in the children’s best interests during their court allocution. Despite this agreement, the mother subsequently filed multiple motions to modify the custody terms, seeking sole legal and physical custody, authority to unilaterally appoint a new parenting coordinator, and the appointment of a forensic evaluator and attorney for the children.

It is alleged that the mother filed these modification motions in close succession, just over a month apart, following a prior denial of similar relief. In support of her requests, the mother submitted various allegations, including that the children had suffered bug bites, minor injuries, and expressed dissatisfaction with extracurricular activities. She also raised concerns about the father’s parenting abilities and their inability to effectively co-parent. The court denied the mother’s motions, and she appealed. Continue reading

Published on: | by

Divorce litigation often leads to contentious disputes, not only between spouses but also between their attorneys. In high-conflict cases involving financial disclosure, third-party subpoenas, and allegations of attorney misconduct, courts must determine whether a lawyer can continue to represent a client when personal knowledge of disputed facts may make the lawyer a necessary witness. A recent decision from a New York court illustrates how New York courts analyze these situations and the legal standards applied when attorney disqualification is on the table. If you intend to seek a divorce, it is essential to consult a New York divorce attorney as soon as possible to protect your interests.

Procedural History and Allegations

It is reported that the parties were engaged in divorce litigation in New York County when the husband’s attorney, who had submitted sworn affirmations with factual claims based on his personal knowledge, was disqualified by the trial court. The court, on its own motion, determined that the attorney had “inserted himself beyond the role of advocate” and had become a material and necessary witness in connection with claims related to equitable distribution and counsel fees. The court issued a stay of the proceedings to give the husband time to obtain new counsel.

It is further reported that the husband had issued subpoenas to multiple financial institutions seeking the bank records of a nonparty, who had some financial connection to the wife. The nonparty moved to quash the subpoenas, and the husband cross-moved to disqualify the nonparty’s attorney, enforce the subpoenas, and seek sanctions and attorney’s fees. The trial court granted the nonparty’s motion to quash and denied all aspects of the husband’s cross-motion. The husband appealed. Continue reading

Published on: | by

In New York custody matters, the best interests of the child remain paramount. Yet determining how those interests are best served can be challenging when both parents have actively participated in raising the children, and each seeks primary custody. A recent decision from a New York court illustrates how trial courts evaluate shifting parental dynamics, emotional responsiveness, and a parent’s ability to foster relationships when allocating custodial rights. If you are navigating a custody matter involving complex parenting histories or special needs children, it is essential to speak with a knowledgeable New York family law attorney who can help protect your parental rights and prioritize your child’s well-being.

History of the Case

It is reported that the parties were married and share two children born in 2015 and 2020, both of whom are autistic. Allegedly, after separating in 2020, the parties informally co-parented for several years with minimal conflict. It is reported that in April 2023, the younger child left the father’s residence unsupervised during early morning hours, prompting police involvement. The incident reportedly raised safety concerns and coincided with a significant change in the mother’s relationship with the older child.

Allegedly, the relationship between the mother and the older child deteriorated after the child expressed a desire to leave homeschooling, attend public school, and reside with the father. Reportedly, the mother brought the older child to the father’s home, where he has remained. Subsequently, the mother filed a petition for custody of both children, and the father filed a cross-petition seeking primary custody. By agreement, the parties obtained temporary joint legal custody and shared parenting time. Following a fact-finding hearing and a Lincoln hearing, the Family Court granted the father primary physical custody of the older child, awarded joint legal custody of both children, and established equal parenting time for the younger child. The mother appealed. Continue reading

Published on: | by

In New York divorce actions, disputes over asset classification can become even more complex when the marriage has foreign origins. When parties were married abroad, courts must determine whether that marriage is legally recognizable under New York law before proceeding to equitable distribution. A recent decision from a New York court illustrates how courts evaluate claims involving religious or informal foreign marriages, and how the concept of comity interacts with New York’s strong public policies regarding marriage equality. If you have questions about how a divorce may impact your financial well-being, it is smart to talk to an experienced New York divorce attorney.

History of the Case

It is reported that the parties were married in Egypt in August 2012 through an Urfi marriage ceremony and later participated in a civil marriage ceremony in December 2012. Allegedly, during the course of their marriage, the parties acquired ownership of two adjacent residential units in Egypt, referred to in the litigation as Apartments 4 and 5.

Continue reading

Published on: | by

Child support obligations in New York are grounded in a parent’s ability to support their children, not merely their reported income. While disability retirement may affect a parent’s financial picture, it does not automatically warrant a reduction in child support. Courts will closely scrutinize whether the parent has made good-faith efforts to maintain employment within their physical capacity. A recent decision from a New York court demonstrates this principle and reaffirms that the burden remains on the parent seeking a downward modification to prove both a legitimate loss of income and continued effort to remain employable. If you are facing a petition to modify child support or need to challenge one, it is critical to speak with a knowledgeable New York divorce and family law attorney.

History of the Case

It is reported that the parties were divorced by judgment dated August 3, 2017. Allegedly, the terms of the parties’ stipulation of settlement, executed in May 2017, were incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce. That stipulation reflected a pre-existing order requiring the father to pay $989 biweekly in child support for the parties’ two children, in addition to 77% of unreimbursed medical expenses.

It is further reported that in March 2022, the father’s support obligations were modified by court order to $936 biweekly in basic child support and 64% of unreimbursed medical costs. Then, in May 2023, the father filed a petition seeking a downward modification of that March 2022 order, claiming a substantial change in circumstances due to his approval for disability retirement from his position as an assistant sanitation foreman for the Village of Scarsdale. Continue reading

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

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