New York Divorce Lawyer Blog
Ending a marriage can greatly impact people not only emotionally but also financially. As such, it is not surprising that people often want to resolve the financial disputes that arise in divorce proceedings as expeditiously as possible. Generally, however, the courts will not bifurcate spousal support and divorce claims to move along proceedings, as discussed in a recent New York ruling. If you are involved in a divorce and have questions about how you can protect your financial health, it is smart to consult a skilled New York divorce attorney.
History of the Case
It is reported that the wife initiated divorce proceedings and, as part of the litigation, the husband sought pendente lite spousal support. The husband allegedly argued that the issue of spousal support should be transferred to Family Court, believing that it would lead to a quicker resolution. Additionally, the husband sought a greater temporary maintenance award than what was initially determined by the trial court.
Allegedly, the trial court denied the husband’s request to bifurcate the proceedings, reasoning that bifurcation is generally disfavored in matrimonial cases. The trial court reportedly expressed concerns that separate proceedings in Family Court and Supreme Court could lead to inconsistent rulings and procedural delays. The husband was also ordered to discontinue his pending Family Court action.
It is alleged that the trial court granted the husband’s request for pendente lite spousal maintenance in part. The husband, dissatisfied with both the denial of his bifurcation request and the amount of spousal support awarded, appealed the decision.
Bifurcation of Claims in Divorce Actions
The court reviewed whether the trial court had abused its discretion in denying the husband’s motion to transfer the spousal support determination to Family Court and in awarding the temporary maintenance amount of $750 per month.
Under New York law, bifurcation in divorce cases is strongly discouraged due to concerns about economic coercion, extended litigation, and conflicting judicial determinations. The court reaffirmed that the trial court has broad discretion in handling financial matters and found no compelling reason to justify bifurcation in this case.
It is well-established that Supreme Court has the authority to determine issues of equitable distribution and spousal support in divorce cases. The appellate court noted that the husband’s assertion that Family Court would resolve the matter more quickly was speculative and unsupported. Since the trial court had jurisdiction over all financial issues, allowing the case to proceed as a single action was the appropriate course of action.
Regarding the spousal maintenance award, the court examined whether the trial court correctly applied Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(5-a), which governs temporary maintenance calculations. The statute provides a formula to determine the presumptive amount of temporary maintenance but also allows for adjustments based on statutory factors.
In this case, the trial court found that the guideline amount of $2,400 per month was unjust or inappropriate, justifying the reduced award of $750 per month. The court upheld this determination, emphasizing that temporary maintenance awards are meant to be provisional and that any inequities should be resolved through a prompt trial.
The court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s decision, rejecting the husband’s arguments for bifurcation and for an increased maintenance award.
Talk to a Trusted New York Divorce Attorney Today
If you intend to end your marriage, it is wise to talk to an attorney about what steps you can take to protect your financial interests. Ksenia Rudyuk is a trusted New York divorce attorney who can aid you in seeking the best legal result available under the facts of your case. To schedule a consultation, contact Rudyuk Law Firm at 212-706-2001 or reach out through our online contact form today.