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 Chabad.org:

“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

Scheinkman photo 2.jpgFrom the “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up” Department:

During the course of this Westchester County divorce action, Elizabeth Perry “engaged in inappropriate litigation behavior.” She refused to comply with court orders to produce documents or to submit to an examination before trial, she secreted assets (including millions of dollars of cash assets), and she apparently illicitly acquired documents and computer files belonging to her husband, Jeffrey.

The July 17, 2012 decision of Supreme Court Justice Alan D. Scheinkman (pictured) in Perry v. Perry, resolved a motion prompted by the wife’s alleged transmission to the husband of an unsigned, haphazardly redacted and truncated letter from an undisclosed attorney writing to “confirm” an understanding with the wife and which recommended the filing of a civil RICO action against the husband in the United States District Court.  The document suggested that the litigation would be based on the husband’s failure to fully disclose his income and assets on his Statement of Net Worth.

Mr. Perry alleged that at the outset of the case, his wife’s first of 11 attorneys in this 19-month pending action made similar allegations. Although the husband attested to having provided tens of thousands of pages of documents, the wife refused to provide any.

It was also alleged that the wife had intercepted some nine boxes of files intended for the husband and hid them. Ms. Perry apparently orchestrated the hacking of her husband’s computer, including privileged matter. Mr. Perry alleged that in order to circumvent a restraint imposed by the Court, his wife put the housekeeper in a disguise and directed her to take a taxi to a storage unit in order to remove a suitcase full of jewelry. It was also claimed that Ms. Perry emptied a money market account of $5 million and removed valuable furniture, artwork and mirrors from the marital residence. Further, recent bank information indicated that of the approximately $11.5 million held in a particular Chase account of the wife in April 2012, there is only just over $1 million left.

On non-financial matters, the wife attempted to involve the police and commenced a now-dismissed family offense proceeding when her husband technically violated a driveway-pickup order when he entered the former marital residence in Scarsdale in order to convince his daughter to go with him on a planned vacation trip to Australia. As it happened, his wife’s absence from the home was also likely a violation of that portion of the order that required her to be inside the residence. While Ms. Perry’s effort to involve the police was not wholly successful (she did get Homeland Security officials to detain Mr. Perry and the children briefly upon return to this country), she obtained an ex parte Family Court temporary order of protection, which she used to derail the husband’s access to the children for a time.

Mr Perry also believed it was his wife, after Justice Scheinkman previously directed that Mr. Perry have custody of the children, who anonymously complained to Child Protective Services that the children were being held against their will at Mr. Perry’s residence. This claim was investigated and found to be unfounded.


Continue Reading

lawyer thinking small.jpg

If a spouse wilfully fails to provide financial information during the discovery phase of a divorce action, one remedy may be an order of preclusion under C.P.L.R. §3126.  Thus, an August, 2010 decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Raville v. Elnomany, affirmed the preclusion of the husband “from offering financial evidence at