In its October 20, 2015 decision in El-Dehdan v. El-Dehdan, New York’s highest court restates the elements of civil contempt, the burdens of proof needed to support a finding, and the effect of the assertion of a Fifth Amendment privilege against incrimination. Doing so, the Court of Appeals affirmed a 2013 decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department, which in turn upheld the finding of civil contempt made by Kings County Supreme Court Justice Eric I. Prus.

In January 2010, an Order to Show Cause was signed to bring on the wife’s motion to hold the husband in contempt for having violated a 2008 order that supposedly restrained the transfer of assets. The husband had transferred certain parcels of realty. In addition to scheduling a hearing on the contempt motion, a Temporary Restraining Order was issued directing the husband to deposit immediately with the wife’s attorney the sum of $950,000.00 “which is the sum of money he purportedly received from the transfer of [the property] 171 Ainslie Street, Brooklyn, New York and 64-17 60th Road, Maspeth, New York, minus the money paid for [the] real estate broker, transfer taxes and payment of the underlying mortgage.” The husband was personally served with this Order to Show Cause.

As it turns out, the 2008 order did not, in fact, prohibit the transactions in which the husband engaged. However, here, the husband was not found in civil contempt for having violated the 2008 order, but for violating the Temporary Restraining Order contained in the January, 2010 Order to Show Cause that looked to preserve marital assets and the status quo while the court considered whether the husband violated the 2008 order.


Continue Reading

A spouse’s pre-divorce judgment death results in the unenforceablitity of divorce action orders, including the automatic orders mandated by Domestic Relations Law §236(B)(2)(b). As a result, Westchester County Supreme Court Justice Paul I. Marx held in his April 17, 2014 decision in A.V.B. v. D.B. that a husband was without a remedy for his wife removing the husband as a beneficiary of her retirment account and life insurance policy.

After 13 years of marriage and two children, the wife commenced this divorce action on September 12, 2012. Pursuant to stipulated Preliminary Conference Orders, it was agreed that the wife would be awarded the divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, an Attorney for the Child was appointed and the pre-trial schedule was fixed.

On April 22, 2013, the wife committed suicide. During the administration of her Estate, it was learned that on February 14, 2013, while the divorce action was pending, the wife had changed the named beneficiaries on her ING 403(b) account from her husband as her sole beneficiary to the parties’ two children as 50% primary beneficiaries. It was further discovered that on or about March 10, 2013, the wife changed her designation of the husband as the sole named beneficiary on her Prudential life insurance policy to the husband as a 1% primary beneficiary, the parties’ daughter K. as a 49% beneficiary and daughter R. as a 50% beneficiary.

The husband’s counsel then submitted a letter to Justice Marx with a proposed order directing that the named beneficiaries on the wife’s ING account and Prudential life insurance policy revert back to the date of the commencement of the action and directing ING and Prudential to pay out the balance in the wife’s annuity and the “death benefit” under her life insurance policy to the named beneficiaries that existed before the changes were made. At that time, the husband’s lawyer also submitted the supporting affirmation of the attorney for wife’s Estate, declaring that the Estate consented to the proposed order.

Justice Marx declined to sign the proposed order. Instead, the Court scheduled a conference at which the Court directed defense counsel to move by Order to Show Cause. Although no papers were submitted in response to that motion, Justice Marx nevertheless denied it. The relief sought in the motion was not warranted by the law, nor by a good faith extension of the law.

While it is regrettable that Plaintiff violated the automatic orders and seems to have reached beyond the grave to thwart Defendant’s efforts to recover his share of her assets, this Court is unable to remedy the violation in this proceeding.


Continue Reading

Gay marriage rings.jpgLast week, the Appellate Division, Third Department, exercised its equitable muscle to filling in the gaps while the marriage and divorce laws of the different states catch up with each other.  On July 21, 2011, in Dickerson v. Thompson, the court granted a dissolution of a Vermont civil union.

Under Vermont law, the civil union entered by the gay couple was not a marriage. As a result, a New York divorce, “no-fault” or otherwise, was not the appropriate remedy. The appellate court noted that as “the plaintiff would be entitled to a dissolution of a civil union in Vermont,” but for her failure to be a current resident of that state. Giving the plaintiff her need relief, the court declared the broad equity powers of the New York Supreme Court were sufficient to declare the Vermont civil union dissolved. Thus, the plaintiff would now be free to marry, domestically partner, or re-unite with another.

While New York tore asunder one gay couple, more than 800 gay couples were able to marry on July 24, 2011, the first day of such unions under New York’s same-sex marriage legislation.  New York is still coming to grips with joining the rest of the country by making the dissolution of a marriage a matter of one spouse’s choice: a simple declaration that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. That law is just under 10 months old.


Continue Reading

House of money.jpgThe May, 2011 decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Many v. Many, seems, at first blush, to be a rather routine matter. While their divorce action is pending, the interests of the parties are balanced. However, below the surface lurk issues which highlight the frustration and anxiety which spouses must feel as their case is squired through the judicial process.

By Order to Show Cause issued June 13, 2009, two years before this decision, the wife sought interim support.  She also sought a restraint against her husband refinancing the marital residence. One may surmise that Mr. Many was sole owner of the home; it was his “separate property,” subject to his wife’s claim to an equitable share.

Ms. Many received her award of temporary maintenance. However, by his Order of April, 2010, Supreme Court, Westchester County, Justice Edgar G. Walker, denied that branch of Ms. Many’s motion which was to restrain her husband from encumbering the marital residence.  In effect, Mr. Many was authorized to refinance the equity in the marital residence, but restricted from using the funds for any purpose other than paying his pendente lite maintenance obligation.


Continue Reading