New York Divorce Lawyer Blog

New York Court Discusses Grounds for Restricting Petitions in Family Law Cases

Published on: February 13, 2026 | by Rudyuk Law Firm

Custody disputes rarely remain static after a divorce is finalized. Changes in a parent’s mental health, parenting involvement, or the child’s needs can quickly raise serious questions about whether an existing custody arrangement still serves the child’s best interests. A recent New York decision reinforces a critical principle of New York family law: when a parent presents sufficient evidence of changed circumstances affecting a child’s welfare, courts must permit a full hearing rather than dismiss the request outright. If you are seeking to modify custody or defending against a modification petition, it is essential to talk to an experienced New York child custody attorney about how you can protect both your parental rights and your child’s well-being.

History of the Case

It is reported that the parties divorced in 2019 pursuant to a judgment incorporating a prior stipulation granting the father joint legal custody and primary residential custody. The custody arrangement was later modified by a court-approved stipulation entered in 2021.

Allegedly, in 2024, the father filed a petition seeking sole legal and residential custody of the child, while the mother filed a cross-petition requesting increased parental access and expanded decision-making authority. The trial court issued an order prohibiting the father from filing any further custody-related petitions without prior written permission and dismissed his modification petition without conducting a hearing. The father appealed both determinations.

New York Court Examines Rights of Surviving Spouse Granted Via Marital Agreements

Published on: January 29, 2026 | by Rudyuk Law Firm

Family law disputes do not always end with divorce or death. In many cases, unresolved marital agreements resurface after a spouse passes away, placing surviving family members in prolonged litigation. A recent New York decision illustrates how prenuptial agreements, marital housing rights, and waiver of spousal interests can become central family law issues long after a marriage has ended by death. If you have questions about your rights regarding a prenuptial agreement, it is critical to consult an experienced New York family law attorney to protect your interests.

Case Setting

It is reported that the plaintiff commenced an action seeking possession of a cooperative apartment following the death of the decedent. Allegedly, the defendant was the decedent’s surviving spouse who continued to reside in the apartment despite prior court proceedings addressing her rights under a marital trust and a prenuptial agreement.

It is alleged that earlier litigation determined that the defendant could not compel the cooperative to transfer the apartment shares into a marital trust and therefore had no legal right to occupy the apartment. Following that determination, the plaintiff sought ejectment and a declaration of exclusive possession.

Reportedly, the defendant responded by asserting counterclaims, alleging that her waiver of spousal inheritance rights was invalid for lack of consideration and that the prenuptial agreement obligated the plaintiff to provide a comparable replacement residence. The trial court entered a default judgment on the ejectment claims and dismissed all counterclaims, prompting the appeal.

New York Court Discusses Validity of Marriages

Published on: January 16, 2026 | by Rudyuk Law Firm

Blog-post-TEMPLATE-6-e1768514738538-300x209 In New York divorce litigation, the threshold question of whether a valid marriage exists can be outcome-determinative. When parties participate in a religious ceremony without obtaining a marriage license, courts must carefully assess whether the ceremony satisfies statutory requirements for a legally recognized marriage. A recent decision highlights the limits of New York law in recognizing religious ceremonies as civil marriages and the importance of understanding how religious practices intersect with secular legal standards. If you are facing a divorce or annulment dispute involving questions about the validity of a marriage, it is smart to consult an experienced New York family law attorney.

History of the Case

It is reported that the wife commenced a divorce action, asserting that the parties were married during a religious ceremony that took place in 2017. Allegedly, the parties did not obtain a marriage license prior to the ceremony, which occurred at a Coptic Orthodox church following the baptism of their child and the wife’s baptism into the church. The wife alleged that, after the baptisms, a bishop conducted an impromptu wedding ceremony that created a valid marriage under New York law.

Allegedly, the husband disputed that any marriage took place, maintaining that the ceremony was merely a family blessing and not a wedding. The husband moved to dismiss the divorce complaint for failure to state a claim, submitting sworn statements from the officiating bishop asserting that no marriage had been performed. The wife cross-moved for a declaration that the parties were legally married. After a hearing with testimony from clergy, experts, and witnesses, the trial court denied the husband’s motion and declared the marriage valid, relying in part on the parties’ conduct after the ceremony. The husband appealed. Continue reading

New York Court Discusses Grounds for Modifying Child Support Orders

Published on: January 2, 2026 | by Rudyuk Law Firm

In New York child support cases, it is not uncommon for one parent to request an upward modification if they believe the other parent’s income has increased. However, courts require clear, specific proof before altering an existing support order. A recent New York decision highlights how even credible concerns about increased earnings may fall short without proper documentation and procedural precision. If you are considering a modification of child support or defending against one, it is essential to understand what courts require and to consult a knowledgeable New York family law attorney before moving forward.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the parties are the parents of a child born in 2015. Allegedly, beginning in 2020 and continuing into 2021, the parties filed more than two dozen petitions in Family Court raising issues that included child support disputes, interference with parenting time, and allegations of harassment. These matters were consolidated for a joint hearing that commenced in June 2021.

Allegedly, after the hearing had already begun, the mother filed a separate petition in July 2021 seeking an upward modification of the father’s child support obligation. The petition did not identify the specific support order the mother sought to modify, nor did she introduce that order into evidence. It appears that the operative order was entered on consent in January 2020 and required the father to pay $100 per week in child support, which both parties acknowledged was a voluntary upward departure from a lower guideline amount based on the father’s limited documented income at the time.

New York Court Discusses Jurisdiction Over Custody Cases

Published on: December 19, 2025 | by Rudyuk Law Firm

In interstate and international custody disputes, even the most urgent requests can be denied if the court lacks proper jurisdiction over a parent. In other words, procedural rules governing service of process and notice are not mere technicalities but fundamental safeguards that ensure fairness and due process. A recent New York decision demonstrates how failures in service can invalidate custody orders entirely, even after a court has granted sole custody by default. If you are involved in a custody dispute that crosses state or international borders, it is critical to consult an experienced New York family law attorney before taking action that could later be vacated.

History of the Case

It is reported that the parties are the parents of a child subject to a prior custody order issued in another state, which granted the mother primary custody. Allegedly, the father later filed a petition in New York Family Court seeking to modify that out-of-state custody order and obtain sole legal and physical custody of the child. The mother was living outside the United States at the time the petition was filed.

Allegedly, the Family Court granted the father’s petition on default after authorizing service on the mother by email and directing the initiation of international service. The court awarded the father sole legal and physical custody of the child without visitation to the mother. It is alleged that the mother later moved to dismiss the proceeding and vacate the custody order, arguing that the court never acquired personal jurisdiction over her due to improper service. The Family Court denied that motion, and the mother appealed. Continue reading

New York Court Explains When a Parent’s Consent Is Not Required for Adoption

Published on: December 4, 2025 | by Rudyuk Law Firm

Blog-post-TEMPLATE-3-e1764861263696-300x211 In New York family law, few issues are as emotionally charged as disputes over a parent’s right to consent to a child’s adoption. When a parent has been absent from a child’s life for years, courts must weigh the child’s stability, safety, and emotional needs against the parental rights of a biological parent seeking renewed involvement. A recent New York decision demonstrates how courts approach these difficult cases and underscores the critical importance of parents maintaining contact, communication, and meaningful involvement if they hope to preserve their legal rights. If you are facing an adoption, custody dispute, or questions about parental rights, it is essential to speak with a knowledgeable New York family law attorney who can guide you through these complex proceedings.

History of the Case

It is reported that the child’s unmarried parents welcomed their daughter in 2013. When the father became incarcerated in 2015, he consented to an order giving the child’s maternal great-grandmother sole custody, with visitation to each parent as agreed. The child later moved to live with her maternal grandfather and step-grandmother, who effectively assumed her day-to-day care.

Allegedly, after the father’s release from prison, a 2016 order granted joint legal custody to the father, the mother, the grandparents, and the great-grandmother, with primary placement to the grandparents. The father, however, was reincarcerated for a parole violation and did not resume consistent involvement following his release. In 2022, the grandparents filed a petition seeking to adopt the child, and after a fact-finding hearing, the trial court determined that the father’s consent was not required and allowed the adoption to proceed. The father later filed his own custody petition, which was dismissed for lack of standing. The father then appealed. Continue reading

New York Court Discusses Discretion in Distributing Marital Property

Published on: November 20, 2025 | by Rudyuk Law Firm

Blog-post-TEMPLATE-1-300x216

In New York, divorces involving substantial assets and complex financial histories often turn on how courts classify property, value investments, and weigh each spouse’s contributions. When millions of dollars, investment interests, and long-term financial planning are at stake, even small variations in a court’s findings can dramatically affect the final judgment. A recent opinion issued by a New York court in a divorce action highlights how these disputes unfold and why skilled legal guidance is essential for anyone facing a divorce involving significant assets or competing claims to separate property. If you are navigating a high-asset divorce, it is critical to consult a knowledgeable New York family law attorney who can protect your financial interests from the outset.

History of the Case

It is reported that the parties married in 2009 and have one child. The wife commenced a divorce action in early 2017, resulting in a nonjury trial and a judgment entered in 2021. The trial court awarded the husband a substantial separate-property credit tied to the purchase of the marital residence, allocated a notable share of the closing costs to the wife, awarded the wife only a modest sum in counsel fees, and failed to distribute a 529 college savings account. The trial court also set maintenance for a limited duration and issued a child support award, prompting the wife to appeal.

Allegedly, the husband cross-appealed, challenging the denial of several claimed separate-property credits relating to investment funds and brokerage accounts. He further disputed the valuation of his interest in an investment company, the allocation of tuition expenses for future college attendance, and the directive requiring him to pay the majority of carrying charges on the marital residence while awaiting its sale. Continue reading

Court Addresses Dispute Over Temporary Support in New York Divorce Action

Published on: November 6, 2025 | by Rudyuk Law Firm

In high-conflict New York divorces, disputes over temporary support, living expenses, and attorney fees can significantly impact the entire course of the litigation. When one spouse seeks financial relief while the other challenges the fairness or amount of such awards, the outcome often depends on how the court balances immediate needs with equitable discretion. A recent decision illustrates how New York courts evaluate these interim financial determinations, highlighting the importance of having skilled legal representation when temporary orders can significantly impact long-term outcomes. If you are navigating a divorce involving questions of temporary support or counsel fee obligations, it is crucial to consult an experienced New York family law attorney to help you protect your financial position and ensure fairness throughout the process.

History of the Case

It is reported that the parties were married in 2011 and had two children during the marriage. The husband commenced an action for divorce and ancillary relief in July 2023. The wife subsequently moved for pendente lite relief, seeking an award of interim counsel fees and an order directing the husband to pay rent for the marital residence for a specified period. The husband, who had been granted temporary residential custody of the children, filed a separate motion seeking pendente lite child support from the wife.

Allegedly, in December 2023, the trial court issued two orders. The first directed the husband to pay $2,500 in interim counsel fees and one-half of the rent due on the marital residence. The second order granted the husband’s motion for pendente lite child support only to the extent of directing the wife to pay $916.88 per month in temporary child support and $200 per month in retroactive support. The husband appealed both orders, asserting that the trial court erred in its income determinations and that the financial obligations imposed were inequitable given the circumstances. Continue reading

New York Court Upholds Parenting Agreement

Published on: October 22, 2025 | by Rudyuk Law Firm

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

New York Court Discusses Attorney Disqualification in Divorce Proceedings

Published on: October 7, 2025 | by Rudyuk Law Firm

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