DivorceToday.com

Important Court of Appeals and Appellate Division Decisions

  1. CHILD SUPPORT CASES:
    1. Life Insurance:
      •     Recuppio v. Recuppio, 246 AD2d 342, 667 NYS2d 365 (First Dept. 1998):

        In this case, the Appellate Division held that the trial court erred in failing to direct the noncustodial parent to be responsible for maintaining health insurance and reimbursement of reasonable uncovered health expenses and deductibles for the parties' child, where the parent's employer provided coverage.

    2. Application of the CSSA Formula over the $80,000.00 Cap:

      New York has adopted, through statute and case law, special and sometimes confusing rules for the determination of child support with respect to combined parental income over $80,000.00. The law concerning these rules is subject to frequent discussion by the courts, and the application of these rules can vary among judges and courts. The cases discussed below deal with this confusing issue


      •     Cassano v. Cassano, 85 NY2d 649, 628 NYS2d 10 (1995):

        The court affirmed and held that as to combined parental income over $ 80,000, the Act explicitly afforded the option that a court could apply the factors set forth in § 413(1)(f) of the Family Court Act "and/or" the child support percentage. It was within the trial court's discretion to apply the § 413(1)(f) factors, or to apply the statutory percentages, or to apply both in fixing the basic child support obligation on parental income over $ 80,000. However, some articulation in the record of the reasons for the court's choice to apply the percentage was necessary.

        The Court in Cassano further held that the burden is on the party seeking to avoid the application of the $80,000.00 statutory cap to demonstrate why there should be a departure from the prescribed percentage. Factors can include: financial resources of the parents and child; the health of the child and any special needs; the standard of living the child would have had if the marriage had not ended; tax consequences; nonmonetary contributions of the parents toward the child; the educational needs of the parents; the disparity in the parents' incomes; the needs of other nonparty children receiving support from one of the parents; extraordinary expenses incurred in exercising visitation; and any other factors the court determines are relevant.


      •     R.R. v. P.R., New York Law Journal, May 25, 2003, upheld by the Appellate Division at 298 A.D.2d 169; 748 N.Y.S.2d 474

        The Trial Court held that the "geographic realities" of the case - namely the parties' residence in the Upper East Side of Manhattan, justified the imposition of the statutory formula to income above $80,000.00. The Court stated:

        "This Court notes that it takes more money to raise two children on the upper east side of Manhattan than it might in some other areas of this State, and application of the stated percentage to income above $ 80,000 is needed to account for geographic realities. This Court has also considered that the gross income of defendant is substantially less than plaintiffs gross income (DRL @ 240 1-b(f)(7)). The Court notes that the statutory formula has been routinely applied to combined parental income as high as $ 150,000 (Scheinkman, New York Law of Domestic Relations, @ 16.34, at 679 [1996]). This Court will apply the statutory percentage to the first $ 150,000 of combined parental income"
    3. Child Support Arrears:

      •     Dox v. Tynon, 90 NY2d 166, 659 NYS2d 231 (1997):

        In Dox v Tynon the Court of Appeals, noting that courts may not reduce or cancel any arrears that have accrued, held that the recipient of child support does not waive the right to unpaid child support simply by failing to demand payment or seek enforcement of support obligations for 11 years. It concluded that forgiveness of nonpayment based on an implied waiver is prohibited.

  2. EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION CASES:
    1. Stock Options:

      •     DeJesus v. DeJesus, 90 NY2d 643, 665 NYS2d 36 (1997)

        • In this decision, the Court of Appeals provided basic rules for the application of equitable distribution to restricted stock and stock option benefit plans provided by a spouse's employer. The court relied upon the statutory presumption that all property, unless clearly separate, is deemed marital property and that it is the burden of the titled spouse to rebut that presumption.

        Consequently, it is incumbent upon the trial court to determine whether and to what extent the stock plans were granted as compensation for the employee's past services or as incentive for the employee's future services. With respect to any portion found to be compensation for past services, a time rule should be applied to factor out any value which may be traceable to the period before the marriage, where the numerator is the time from the later of the beginning of the titled spouse's employment with the issuing company, or the beginning of the marriage, until the date of the grant, and the denominator is the time from the beginning of the titled spouse's employment until the date of the grant. With respect to any portion(s) granted as incentive for future services, the trial court must

    2. Equitable Distribution of Licenses and Degrees:

      •     O'Brien v. O'Brien, 66 NY2d 576 [1985])

        • Licenses or degrees obtained during the course of a marriage are marital property to the extent they enhance the earnings of the titled spouse.

  3. NUPTIAL AGREEMENTS:

      •    O'Brien v. O'Brien, 66 NY2d 576 [1985])

        • A nuptial agreement made before or during the marriage must satisfy three requirements to be "valid and enforceable in a matrimonial action." The agreement must be in writing. It must be subscribed by the parties and it must be "acknowledged or proven in the manner required to entitle a deed to be recorded." The Court of Appeals held that a written post-nuptial agreement that was signed by the parties but not acknowledged is unenforceable.