In its August 24, 2016 decision in Maddaloni v. Maddaloni, the Appellate Division, Second Department, upheld the rulings of Supreme Court Suffolk County Justice Justice Carol Mackenzie that invalidated the all-but-complete maintenance waiver contained in a 23-year-old postnuptial agreement, awarding the wife maintenance for 10 years. The appellate court also upheld Justice Mackenzie’s award to the wife of 25% of the $2,000,000 appreciation during the marriage in the value of the husband’s pre-marital business, Maddaloni Jewelers of Huntington.

The Maddalonis were married in January, 1988. At the time of the marriage, the husband owned several cars, a house, and a jewelry business, and he was in contract to buy a shopping center. On August 22, 1988, less than eight months after the parties were married, they experienced marital difficulties and entered into a postnuptial agreement. Among other things, this agreement provided that, in the event that the parties divorced after the first five years of marriage, the wife agreed to accept the sum of $50,000, payable in five equal annual installments of $10,000, “in full satisfaction of any and all claims of whatsoever kind and nature she may have at that time for past or future support or for distribution of assets.”

Continue Reading Maintenance Provision of Postnuptial Agreement Voided; Wife Awarded 25% of Appreciation of Husband’s Premarital Business

Mendel EpsteinAccording to Jewish law, God prescribed both the way to unite souls in marriage and gave instructions how those souls can be severed. While Jewish law requires one to follow the law of the land, and thus a civil divorce is required, that civil divorce cannot serve as a substitute for a halachic (conforming to the strictures of Jewish law) divorce, the “get.” Without a get, no matter how long the couple is separated, and regardless of civil law documents, in the eyes of Jewish law the couple is still married. As reported at

“According to biblical law, a married couple is released from the bonds of matrimony only through the transmission of a bill of divorce from the husband to the wife. This document, commonly known by its Aramaic name, “get,” serves not only as a proof of the dissolution of the marriage in the event that one or both wish to remarry, it actually effects the divorce.”

To appreciate the scope of the problem, note, for example, that in December, 2015 70-year old Rabbi Mendel Epstein of Brooklyn (pictured), dubbed “The Prodfather,” was sentenced to 10 years in jail after he was convicted of charging wives thousands of dollars to torture their husbands into delivering a get. See, NY Daily News.

In 1983, New York enacted Domestic Relations Law §253 to address husbands who withhold the get. That section, in combination with DRL §236(B)(5)(h), and DRL §236(B)(6)(d) empowers a court to direct specific performance of a Ketubah (the marriage contract) or other agreement by which a husband previously agreed to provide a get to his wife. Civil contempt sanctions are available for non-compliance. Additionally, for withholding a get, the court may deny a husband any right to equitable distribution of the marital estate and/or award the wife maintenance at a level designed to encourage compliance. If the husband is the plaintiff, the court may also deny him a civil divorce.

In its April 13, 2016 decision in Mizrahi-Srour v. Srour, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed Kings County Supreme Court Justice Esther M. Morgenstern‘s award to the wife of maintenance of $100 per week for five years, which would be increased to $200 per week if the husband did not provide a get to the wife within 60 days, and also distributed to the wife 70% of the marital assets, and awarded counsel fees.

Continue Reading What’s the Court's Dollar Value for a Religious Divorce (“Get”)?

It Need Not Be Rocket Science
It Need Not Be Rocket Science

A business, professional practice, or (until recent statutory amendments) license may be valued as a asset for divorce purposes based upon the amount of income it generates for the owner/holder. That asset may then be equitably distributed by granting the non-owner a monetary award equal to some percentage of the value.

Double-dipping, or double-counting, is the term for using the same stream of income both to value the business/practice, and then, after distributing an award to the non-owner based on the asset’s value, using the stream of income generated by the business/practice to base an award of spousal support (or child support, for that matter). If the non-owner spouse receives a “piece” of the income stream as an asset award, should the spouse get another piece as spousal support (maintenance)?

The “law” is yes, no and maybe. There is a rule against double-dipping, except when there’s not.

For the most part, if the business/practice is recognized as a “tangible asset,” just as the court would characterize a piece of real property, or publicly-traded stock, or a privately-held company whose income is a result of the work of many people, then it is generally held that the rule against double-dipping does not apply. The non-owner would get a distributive award based on the asset. Maintenance may also be awarded based upon the income generated by the tangible asset business. The rule against double-dipping rule does not apply.

If however, the business value is recognized as an “intangible asset,” then the rule against double-dipping applies, and the same stream of income may not be twice used.

Continue Reading Double Dipping and the Distinction Without a Difference

As of January 31, 2016, the “income cap” for maintenance is $178,000.

The presumptive final maintenance formula on the first $175,000 of the payor’s annual income only just came into effect 6 days before that, for cases filed on or after January 25, 2016 (New York’s Laws of 2015, chapter 269 (D.R.L. §236[B][6][b][4]). For temporary maintenance, the $175,000 income cap under D.R.L. §236(B)(5-a)(b)(4) became effective for cases filed after October 24, 2015.

The Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) to the $175,000 income cap is to be made every two years:

“[B]eginning January thirty-first, two thousand sixteen and every two years thereafter, the income cap amount shall increase by the sum of the average annual percentage changes in the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPIU) as published by the United States department of labor bureau of labor statistics for the prior two years multiplied by the then income cap and then rounded to the nearest one thousand dollars. The office of court administration shall determine and publish the income cap.”

However, the income cap for child support purposes is still the $141,000 that has been in place since January 31, 2014.

Why? Because under New York’s Laws of 2015, chapter 347, Social Services Law §111-i was amended to change the COLA date from January 31st to March 1st. The child support cap will remain $141,000 until March 1, 2016.
Continue Reading Cost of Living Adjustments to the Maintenance and Child Support Formulas

For the second time in six weeks the Appellate Division, Third Department, reduced an award of spousal maintenance for the failure to adjust for the distributive award based on the husband’s business. In its October 22, 2015 decision in Gifford v. Gifford, the Appellate Division, Third Department, modified a maintenance award because of the trial court’s failure to adjust the husband’s income for computation purposes to account for the distributive award to the wife based on the husband’s business. In September, in Mula v. Mula, the Third Department held that once valued, the income attributable to ownership of a professional practice may not also be the basis on which to award spousal maintenance (see, the September 14, 2015 blog post).

In Gifford, the parties in this divorce had stipulated a resolution of Equitable Distribution issues, including a $210,000 award to the wife based on the value of the husband’s geotechnical engineer business. After a trial on maintenance on counsel fees, Supreme Court Justice Vincent J. Reilly awarded the wife nondurational maintenance of $6,000 per month from January 1, 2014 through January 31, 2020, $3,000 per month from February 1, 2020 through June 1, 2022, and $800 per month thereafter, terminating upon either party’s death or the wife’s remarriage.

The Third Department held that Justice Reilley erred in utilizing the husband’s total average annual income of $332,431 for purposes of calculating a maintenance award, without making an adjustment for the distributive award of the company.

Continue Reading Double-Dipping: The Interrelationship of Business-Based Distributive Awards and Spousal Support

The award of maintenance to the divorcing unemployed or under-employed spouse in his or her 50s may be one of the more challenging exercises of a judge’s discretion in a divorce action: too old to develop a lucrative career; too young to collect retirement assets built up over a lengthy marriage.

Although not exactly on point, in its September 30, 2015 decision in Brady v. Bounsing-Brady, the Second Department modified the maintenance award of Orange County Supreme Court Justice Debra J. Kiedaisch that had limited maintenance to 5 years at $1,733 per month. Instead, the appellate court extended the duration of maintenance to the earliest of the wife’s remarriage, her attainment of age 67, or the death of either party.

The 53-year-old wife had been disabled by a workplace injury since 1998. The parties had been married 14 years at date of commencement. The wife had been collecting $20,784 in yearly Social Security disability benefits and retirement disability benefits. (The Second Department held it was error for Justice Kiedaisch to impute another $9,216 in annual income to the wife.) By contrast, the husband was employed as a New York City firefighter earning in excess of $100,000 yearly.

The duration of maintenance is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and every case must be determined on its unique facts.

The factors to be considered in awarding maintenance include the standard of living of the parties during the marriage, the income and property of the parties, the distribution of marital property, the duration of the marriage, the health of the parties, the present and future earning capacity of both parties, the ability of the party seeking maintenance to become self-supporting, and the reduced or lost lifetime earning capacity of the party seeking maintenance.

Here, the Second Department held that Justice Kiedaisch had improvidently exercised her discretion when awarding the defendant maintenance for only 5 years.

The potential for 14 years of maintenance (plus retroactive support) after a 14-year marriage violates old rules of thumb (perhaps a third of the length of the marriage). It also is outside the presumptive range for an award under the new maintenance statute signed into law by Governor Cuomo on September 25, 2015 (D.R.L. §236[B][6][f]):

  • O up to and including 15 years: 15% – 30%
  • More than 15 up to and including 20 years: 30% – 40%
  • More than 20 years: 35% – 50%

Nonetheless, blind adherence to rules of thumb, or the new statutory range may not be appropriate for the non-monied 50-year-old divorcing spouse.

Robert M. Rametta, Esq., of Rametta & Rametta, LLC, of Goshen, represented the wife.

A professional practice is an asset which may be valued and equitably distributed in a divorce. Generally, that value is a function of the income generated by the practice after deducting reasonable compensation being paid to the professional. However, once valued, the income attributable to ownership of the practice may not also be the basis on which to award spousal maintenance.

Take the September 10, 2015 decision of the Appellate Division, Third Department, in Mula v. Mula. There, after 42 years of marriage, the husband commenced this action for a divorce. The wife counterclaimed for divorce and, by agreement, the parties were awarded mutual divorces on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown. During the marriage, the husband earned his C.P.A. license in 1981 and became the sole proprietor of an accounting practice in 1997. During the course of the marriage, the wife was primarily involved with the upkeep of the parties’ home and raising their three children.

Among other rulings, Ulster County Supreme Court Justice Anthony McGinty awarded the wife durational maintenance of $1,500 per month.

On appeal, the Third Department reduced this award to $1,000 per month, holding that Justice McGinty had double-counted the value of the husband’s professional practice. The lower court had valued the income generated by the practice as an asset and equitably distributed that asst. However, Justice McGinty also deemed the husband’s income to include the entire income generated by the practice when calculating the maintenance award to the wife.

The accounting practice was valued at $255,000. Apparently, the husband’s C.P.A. license was separately valued at $39,000.The husband contended on appeal that Justice McGinty had erred when calculating maintenance by failing to reduce his available income to reflect the court’s distributive award of his professional practice and license.

At issue is the rule against double counting, which provides that once a court converts a specific stream of income into an asset, that income may no longer be calculated into the maintenance formula and payout.

The husband’s solely-owned accounting firm was a service business for purposes of this rule.

Continue Reading Double-Dipping: Using an Income Stream as Both an Asset and to Calculate Maintenance

Calculator formulaOn June 24, 2015, the New York State Senate passed Bill A7645-2015 relating to the duration and amount of temporary and post-divorce spousal maintenance. The bill passed the State Assembly on June 15th. It awaits approval by Governor Cuomo.

The law’s formulas apply to actions commenced on or after the 120th day after they become law (except for the temporary maintenance formulas which apply to actions commenced on or after the 30th day after they become law). The new law may not be used as a basis to change existing orders and agreements.

The law will undoubtedly be the subject of numerous articles and legal seminars. Years of decisions will be forthcoming that particularly focus on matters of discretion, just as they followed the enactment of the Child Support Standards Act in 1989.

Before getting to the new formulas, the law eliminates a major thorn in side of the matrimonial bench and bar: When equitably distributing the assets of the parties, the court is no longer to consider as a marital asset the value of a spouse’s enhanced earning capacity arising from a license, degree, celebrity goodwill, or career enhancement (however, it may be condidered when making other distributive awards).

As to maintenance, the following highlights may be noted, many of which are contained in the Sponsor’s Memo:

Continue Reading Legislature Passes Spousal Maintenance (Alimony) Formula

Alimony handedIn its June 4, 2015 decision in Orioli v. Orioli, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed an award of lifetime maintenance (alimony).

The parties were married in 1989 and had two children. In 2009, the wife commenced this action for divorce. Chenango County Supreme Court Justice Kevin M. Dowd awarded the wife nondurational maintenance of $78,000 per year, to be decreased to $50,000 per year once she reached the age of 62. Maintenance would only terminate upon either party’s death or the wife’s remarriage.

The Third Department affirmed, holding that Justice Dowd did not abuse his discretion in his award of maintenance to the wife.

The amount and duration of a maintenance award is left to the sound discretion of a trial court that has considered the statutory factors and the parties’ predivorce standard of living.

A spouse’s ability to become self-supporting with respect to some standard of living in no way (1) obviates the need for the court to consider the predivorce standard of living; and (2) certainly does not create a per se bar to lifetime maintenance.

Indeed, Justice Dowd had addressed the numerous statutory factors and the predivorce standard of living when making the permanent award.

Among other things, he considered the evidence that the marriage was of a long duration (20 years). Justice Dowd further considered that one of the parties’ children resided with the wife, that maintenance would be taxable for the wife and tax deductible for the husband.

It was also noted that the wife had wastefully dissipated $120,000 of marital assets, and lacked candor in her statement of net worth.

Justice Dowd also considered that as of 2009, the husband had reported income of approximately $425,000, while the wife had no income that year. On the other hand, the wife was now capable of working and earning at least $32,000 a year. She did not require additional time or training to gain such employment. Her earning capacity was not affected by her choice not to work during portions of the marriage.

Finally, Justice Dowd recognized that the wife had enjoyed a comfortable standard of living that was commensurate with the husband’s income.

Given the totality of the evidence, we agree that it is unlikely that the wife will become self-supporting so as to attain the lifestyle to which she had been accustomed to during the course of the approximately two-decade marriage.

Accordingly, the appellate court concluded that nondurational maintenance in the amount awarded, which included a reduction in that award at a set future date, was not an abuse of discretion.

William H. Getman, of Woodman & Getman, of Waterville, represented the wife. Michael S. Sinicki, of Hinman, Howard & Kattell, LLP, of Binghamton, represented the husband.

Calulator on 100s 3It’s worthy of note when enough information is provided in an appellate decision to see “how” maintenance and child support were computed. The May 6, 2015 decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Sawin v. Sawin, provides such an opportunity.

In Sawin, the parties were married in 1988 and had three children. During the marriage, the husband worked as a firefighter, and in 2011, he earned approximately $122,500. The wife stopped working full-time after the birth of the parties’ second child in 1994. In 2004, she began working part-time as a real estate agent, earning approximately $15,000 in 2010 and $23,000 in 2011. In December 2010, the wife commenced this matrimonial action seeking, among other things, child support, maintenance, and equitable distribution.

The Second Department held that Putnam County Supreme Court former Justice Francis A. Nicolai providently awarded maintenance to the plaintiff for a period of eight years, and that the amount of the award, $2,000 per month, was not excessive. The Second Department noted that it is well established that, as a general rule, the amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Inasmuch as Justice Nicolai properly considered the factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(6)(a), his award of maintenance was not improvident. Moreover, taking into consideration the financial circumstances of the parties, neither the duration, nor the amount of maintenance was excessive.

Justice Nicolai had also directed the husband to pay child support in the sum of $2,220.33 per month. That award, too, was upheld.

Although there was no specific discussion of methodology or formulas, it may be noted that the award for 8 years, after this 22 marriage, was a period of approximately 36% of the length of the marriage. The maintenance amount of 24,000 per year, happened to be approximately 25% of the income of the husband net of the income of the wife. Child support for the three children was $2,220.33 per month ($26,643.96 per year). That sum was approximately 29% of the husband’s 2011 income less FICA and Medicare taxes and the $24,000.00 in maintenance.

Tomorrow’s blog post will discuss giving the husband credit for paying college room and board expenses. Thursday’s post will discuss giving credits to the wife for debts she incurred after the divorce action was commenced.

Jason A. Advocate, of Advocate & Lichtenstein, LLP (John H. Hersh, former counsel on the brief), of Manhattan, represented the husband. Sarah R. Scigliano, of Stephen M. Santoro, Sr., P.C., of Carmel, represented the wife.