When a Prenup Becomes the Dealbreaker: What New York Couples Can Learn from the Danielle Bernstein Wedding Fallout

IG @WeWoreWhat

The internet has been buzzing after reports that Danielle Bernstein, the fashion entrepreneur behind WeWoreWhat, has called off her wedding. While neither party has publicly litigated the details, widespread reporting and industry chatter point to a familiar fault line. Allegedly, the engagement unraveled over an unresolved prenuptial agreement. For New York couples, especially those with businesses, brands, real estate, or disparate earning power, this situation is not celebrity drama. It is a cautionary tale.

From a matrimonial law perspective, this is exactly how relationships fracture when legal and financial expectations are deferred, minimized, or avoided altogether. In New York City, where wealth is often complex, layered, and growing rapidly, prenups are not about pessimism. They are about alignment, transparency, and risk management.

Prenuptial negotiations tend to fail for a few predictable reasons.

The most common is timing. When a prenup is introduced too close to the wedding date, it immediately feels coercive, even if no one intends it that way. New York courts scrutinize timing aggressively. If one party feels pressured to sign to avoid embarrassment, financial loss, or a cancelled event, enforceability becomes a real issue. Emotionally, rushed negotiations breed resentment and defensiveness, which can spill into the relationship itself.

Another frequent pitfall is a fundamental mismatch in how each person views money and autonomy. One partner may see a prenup as basic business hygiene, especially if they own a company, receive equity compensation, or expect future growth. The other may experience it as a signal of mistrust or a prediction of divorce. That disconnect is rarely about the document. It is about values, expectations, and unspoken fears. When couples are not aligned on whether assets are individual, shared, or evolve over time, the prenup becomes a proxy battle over much deeper issues.

A third issue arises when prenups are framed as non-negotiable ultimatums instead of more peaceful collaborative planning tools. A one-sided draft that aggressively walls off assets, limits support under all circumstances, or ignores career sacrifices almost guarantees pushback. In New York, a prenup does not need to be punitive to be effective. Courts favor agreements that are fair at the time of signing and not unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Couples who approach the process as a zero-sum game often damage both the relationship and the agreement’s durability.

High-profile couples, influencers, founders, and professionals face an additional layer of complexity because future earnings are often speculative but potentially enormous. Brand value, intellectual property, licensing income, and goodwill are real assets under New York law, even if they are hard to value at the outset. When one partner’s identity is tightly bound to a business or public persona, the question of how growth during the marriage is treated must be addressed clearly. Ignoring it does not make it go away. It simply shifts the risk to a future courtroom.

At Mindin & Mindin, P.C., a New York matrimonial law firm, we approach prenuptial agreements as strategic relationship planning, not damage control. Our role is not to strong-arm either party or rubber-stamp a template. We focus on facilitating productive conversations that surface financial goals, career expectations, and risk tolerance early, before positions harden. We draft agreements that protect premarital assets and businesses while still acknowledging the realities of long-term partnership, potential caregiving roles, and lifestyle expectations.

For New York City couples, especially those marrying later in life or entering marriage with established careers, a well-negotiated prenup can actually reduce stress and build trust. It creates clarity around what happens if life goes off script, which in turn allows the relationship to move forward without lingering ambiguity. The key is that both parties feel heard, advised independently by counsel, and respected throughout the process.

The takeaway from the WeWoreWhat / Danielle Bernstein situation is not that prenups ruin weddings. It is that avoiding or mishandling prenup discussions can expose irreconcilable differences that were already there. Whether a couple ultimately signs an agreement or not, the conversation itself is often revealing. In New York, where the financial stakes are high and the legal framework is unforgiving, having that conversation early and with experienced counsel is not optional if you want to protect both your assets and your relationship.

If you are planning for your marriage and have questions about prenuptial agreements in New York City, or if prenup discussions have already become contentious, our firm helps clients navigate these issues with discretion, realism, and a focus on long-term outcomes. The goal is not just an enforceable agreement. It is an agreement both parties can live with, during the marriage and beyond.

Contact us today at 888.501.3292 or Click Here to Schedule a Free Consultation.

When You “Got Married” in a Church but Never Got a License: New York Law May Say You Were Never Married

New York does not have common-law marriage. That means you do not become “married” simply because you lived together for years, introduced each other as spouses, filed paperwork as “married,” or held yourselves out as a family. In a recent First Department decision, Funti v Andrews, the Appellate Division confronted a hard version of that problem: a couple participated in a religious event where one party later claimed there was an impromptu wedding ceremony, but they never obtained a marriage license and the ceremony did not satisfy New York’s statutory solemnization rules. The result was blunt. No valid marriage meant no divorce. (Justia Law)

The legal issue: can there be a valid New York marriage without a marriage license?

As a baseline, New York’s Domestic Relations Law requires a marriage license. (Justia Law) But the law also contains a safety valve: the failure to obtain a license does not automatically void a marriage if the marriage was “solemnized” between adults. That is where most people get tripped up. The statute does not say “no license is fine.” It says “no license can be forgiven if solemnization happened in a legally recognized way.”

Domestic Relations Law § 12 provides two ways a marriage can be “solemnized.” One is the secular declaration route: the parties must solemnly declare, in the presence of an authorized officiant and at least one witness, that they take each other as spouses. (New York State Senate) The other is the denomination route: if a religion has a particular customary mode of solemnizing marriages, a marriage can be valid if it was solemnized in the manner historically used and practiced in that denomination. (New York State Senate)

What happened in Funti v Andrews

The parties’ son was baptized at a Coptic Orthodox church. After the baptism, the plaintiff was baptized into the Coptic Orthodox Church. She later claimed that, after her baptism, the bishop asked if she and the defendant wanted to be married and performed an impromptu wedding ceremony. The defendant said it was a blessing, not a marriage. It was undisputed they had no marriage license, did not exchange rings, made no vows, and did not execute a marriage certificate, among other traditional requirements described in the record.

Years later, the plaintiff filed for divorce. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing there was no marriage to dissolve. The trial court held a hearing and, despite extensive testimony from the bishop and others about Coptic marriage requirements, the court largely avoided relying on religious requirements. Instead, it focused on secular conduct after the ceremony, including property transfers, documents where the defendant had described them as married, and social statements made at a luncheon afterward. On that basis, the trial court declared a valid marriage existed. The Appellate Division reversed. (Justia Law)

Why the First Department reversed: solemnization is a legal test, not a vibe

The First Department’s core holding was straightforward. Because there was no marriage license, the only way the plaintiff could maintain a divorce action was by proving solemnization under DRL § 12 and DRL § 25. (Justia Law) The parties did not solemnly declare they took each other as spouses, so the case turned on whether the ceremony matched the denomination’s established practice for solemnizing a marriage. (Justia Law)

The constitutional complication here is the First Amendment’s “religious entanglement” problem. Courts cannot decide doctrinal disputes. The First Department explained that when the parties genuinely dispute what a religion requires for a valid marriage, the court may have no neutral standard to apply and the complaint may have to be dismissed rather than adjudicated through religious interpretation.

But that is not what happened in Funti. The record contained undisputed evidence of what the Coptic Church required for a proper marriage ceremony, largely through the bishop’s testimony, and the plaintiff did not actually dispute those requirements. (Justia Law) That gave the court a neutral yardstick: apply the proven requirements to the facts and decide whether the ceremony met them. Using that neutral standard, the First Department held the ceremony was not solemnized under New York law and the parties were not validly married.

Most importantly for New York divorce practice, the court rejected the trial judge’s approach of substituting secular “conduct” for the statutory solemnization test. Post-ceremony behavior may show what someone believed, but it does not replace the legal question of whether the ceremony itself satisfied DRL § 12. (Justia Law) The First Department also reiterated a point that matters in many modern disputes: a couple’s intent about whether they wanted the marriage “legally recognized” is not dispositive because marriage is a legal status defined by the State, not a private label controlled by the parties. (Justia Law)

Why this matters for New York divorce, custody, and financial claims

When a court finds there was no valid marriage, the divorce case can be dismissed for the simple reason that Supreme Court cannot dissolve a marriage that never existed. That has serious consequences. Equitable distribution, spousal maintenance, and the full suite of divorce remedies are tied to marital status. If you were never married, you may be pushed into a different set of claims for property and financial disputes, often under contract, unjust enrichment, partition, or other civil theories. In other words, your “divorce case” can turn into a far messier and less predictable litigation problem.

This decision also carries an operational warning for religious communities and couples who combine religious rites with informal planning. If you want the protections and clarity of a New York marriage, you should obtain a marriage license and ensure the ceremony is documented properly. If you do not, you may discover years later, in the middle of a breakup, that one side cannot prove a legally recognized marriage and therefore cannot access divorce remedies.

If you are unsure whether you are validly married under New York law, do not guess and do not rely on what family members said at a luncheon. The legal test is statutory and fact-specific. Funti v Andrews is a reminder that New York courts will analyze solemnization under DRL § 12 and will not allow “we acted married” to substitute for the required ceremony and proof when there was no license. (Justia Law)

If your relationship is ending and there is any question about whether the marriage was valid, this issue needs to be evaluated early because it can control the entire strategy and determine whether Supreme Court even has a divorce case to adjudicate.

For counsel that is practical, strategic, and current on New York matrimonial law developments, contact the Law Offices of Mindin & Mindin, P.C. to schedule a confidential matrimonial consultation. Call 888.501.3292 to discuss your situation and the fastest path to clarity.

Do You Need a “Bulldog” New York Divorce Lawyer? Why Professionalism Beats Chest-Thumping

Many New York divorce and family law clients walk into a consultation convinced they need one specific personality type: the “aggressive bulldog.” They imagine their lawyer glaring at opposing counsel in the hallway, slamming fists on tables, and “never backing down.” Anything less can look, from the outside, like weakness or even “collusion.”

That picture is not only wrong, it is dangerous to your case.

In real New York matrimonial practice, the lawyers who consistently get strong results in divorce, custody, and support matters are not the loudest or most hostile. They are the ones who are respected in the courthouse, trusted by judges, and known by their peers as serious, prepared, and professional. They know when to push, when to negotiate, and when to keep their ego out of the way so your interests stay front and center.

This is not about playing nice for its own sake. It is about understanding how New York courts, judges, and opposing counsel actually operate.

Being Friendly with Opposing Counsel Is Not Collusion

If you are new to litigation, it can be jarring to watch your attorney greet opposing counsel by first name, share a brief laugh, or chat about another case before your conference. You are in one of the most stressful periods of your life. It feels strange that the people on “opposite sides” seem comfortable with each other.

Here is the reality: matrimonial and family law is a small world. The same judges, lawyers, and court staff see one another week after week across Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, Nassau, Suffolk, and the upstate counties. Reputations are built over years. A New York matrimonial attorney who behaves like a bully in every case quickly becomes known as a problem, and that reputation follows them into every courtroom.

Being cordial with opposing counsel is not a sign that your lawyer is “selling you out.” It is a sign that they know how to maintain working relationships in an environment where cooperation, credibility, and trust are currency. Your lawyer’s ethical duty is to you, not to the other attorney. Professional courtesy does not change that. What it does change is how efficiently disputes can be resolved.

How Attorney Temperament Affects Your Stress, Your Costs, and Your Results

The “bulldog” style seems attractive because it promises relentless loyalty. In reality, that high-conflict posture often makes your case more stressful, more expensive, and slower to resolve.

When a lawyer turns every email into a battle and every court appearance into a performance, the temperature of the case goes up. The other side reacts in kind. Positions harden. Simple issues that could be handled with one phone call now require motion practice and repeated conferences. You are copied on every hostile message and dragged into every crisis. Your stress increases without any corresponding benefit.

The cost follows. Constant posturing requires constant response. More letters, more motions, more court time, more adjournments. Fees escalate quickly. You are paying for your lawyer’s unmanaged temperament, not for strategic advocacy.

Resolution slows to a crawl. Judges in New York matrimonial parts are busy. They recognize the lawyers who bring them workable proposals, organized disclosure, and focused disputes. They also recognize the lawyers who bring noise. If your attorney is known as the latter, your case is less likely to move efficiently and more likely to draw judicial irritation.

A competent New York divorce lawyer understands that “aggressive” should mean prepared, strategic, and willing to act decisively when necessary, not loud, reactive, and adversarial for show.

Judges Reward Serious, Strategic Advocacy – Not Theater

In a New York matrimonial courtroom, credibility is everything. Judges see through theatrics very quickly. What influences outcomes is not how rudely an attorney speaks to the other side, but how clearly they present the facts, how well they know the law, and how realistic their proposals are.

When your lawyer is known as measured and professional, the court is more likely to trust their representations about discovery, settlement efforts, and the children’s needs. That trust matters in close calls on issues like temporary support, interim custody arrangements, and counsel fees.

By contrast, an attorney who treats every conversation as a personal contest to “win” can damage that trust. Judges may begin to discount their complaints, treat their motions with skepticism, or assume that every problem is partly of their own making. Your case should not be dragged down by that baggage.

Professionalism is not passivity. It is controlled strength. It is the ability to push hard where it matters most, but only after careful thought about timing, evidence, and the likely reaction from both the court and the other side.

Why Relationships Among Matrimonial Lawyers Help Clients

Because New York matrimonial lawyers encounter each other repeatedly, relationships form. Some lawyers have tried cases against each other, settled dozens of matters together, or served as adversaries in complex custody disputes and high-asset divorces year after year. Over time, they learn each other’s styles, thresholds, and triggers.

That familiarity can benefit you in very concrete ways.

A lawyer who knows opposing counsel well can often predict which issues are truly negotiable and which will require a judge’s decision. They can read the signals in a conversation and distinguish between bluster and actual red lines. They may be able to propose creative solutions that they know the other attorney has accepted in past cases.

They can also pick up the phone and have a frank conversation when something is going off the rails. That kind of offline problem-solving, grounded in mutual respect, can resolve issues in days that would otherwise drag on for months.

All of this happens while your lawyer continues to advocate for you, not for some abstract relationship with opposing counsel. The trust between lawyers is a tool. A competent attorney knows how to use it without compromising your interests.

What Kind of Temperament Should You Expect from a Competent New York Divorce Attorney?

If you are hiring counsel for a New York divorce, custody, or support matter, pay close attention to temperament. You do not need a performer. You need a strategist.

You should expect your lawyer to be calm under pressure, not reactive. You should see that they are able to speak firmly and clearly without escalating unnecessarily. You should hear them explain not only what they can do, but why they might choose not to do something that feels emotionally satisfying in the moment but would harm your long-term position.

You want someone who will tell you when to take a deal and when to walk away, based on the law, the judge, the facts, and the other side’s risk. You want someone who can negotiate with opposing counsel without becoming entangled, and who can litigate aggressively when required without losing credibility with the court.

Most of all, you want someone who understands that the goal is not to “win” every conversation, email, or conference. The goal is to win your case – and to do it efficiently, intelligently, and with as little collateral damage to your children, your finances, and your future as possible.

Talk to New York Matrimonial Counsel Who Take Your Case – Not Their Ego – Seriously

At the Law Offices of Mindin & Mindin, P.C., we practice divorce and family law across New York with a clear philosophy: serious, strategic, and respected advocacy beats unnecessary chest-thumping every time. We regularly work with opposing counsel and the courts. We value professionalism and long-term reputation because they help our clients achieve better outcomes, not because we are trying to keep things “pleasant” at your expense.

If you are considering a New York divorce, in the middle of a custody or support dispute, or concerned that your current lawyer’s style is driving cost and conflict instead of results, it may be time for a different approach.

Contact Mindin & Mindin, P.C. to schedule a confidential matrimonial consultation. Call 888.501.3292 or reach out through our online form so we can discuss your case, your goals, and how disciplined, professional advocacy can move you forward.

Midlife Divorce, “Walkaway Wives,” and New York Matrimonial Law

The Independent profiled what it calls the rise of the “walkaway wife” in midlife divorce in a January 4, 2026 article, highlighting women in their 40s and 50s who decide they have had enough of carrying the emotional, domestic, and often financial load of the marriage and choose to leave. The article draws on UK research, but the themes are strikingly familiar to what we see here in New York divorce practice. (The Independent)

In our New York matrimonial and family law practice, we are seeing a clear increase in midlife divorce, especially among couples whose children are in high school or approaching college. By that stage, the marriage may have been strained for years. Once the hands-on parenting intensity of early childhood starts to ease, many spouses take a hard look at the next 20 to 30 years and quietly decide they are no longer willing to live the rest of their lives in an unhappy or one-sided marriage.

The cultural narrative in The Independent’s piece captures the reality we hear from clients. Many midlife women are not leaving because of a dramatic affair or a sudden crisis. They are leaving because of years of feeling unseen, unsupported, or taken for granted. The article reports that a large share of divorces are now initiated by women, many of whom say they have reached a point of having “had enough,” and that a significant number of midlife women now earn more than their husbands while still carrying the bulk of domestic responsibilities.(The Independent) Those patterns are absolutely mirrored in New York cases.

The legal system, however, does not deal in feelings. It deals in statutes, guidelines, and numbers. When a midlife spouse in New York decides to “walk away,” the emotional story intersects very quickly with hard questions about maintenance, retirement, college costs, property division, and long-term financial security. That is where the cultural discussion in that article becomes directly relevant to New York matrimonial law.

Why Midlife Divorce Is Surging As Children Near College

By the time children are in their mid-teens, a few things tend to be true. The marriage is often a long-term marriage, sometimes 15, 20, or more years. The couple has usually accumulated significant marital assets: retirement accounts, home equity, perhaps a business interest, investment accounts, and college savings. The caregiving and career sacrifices of each spouse are no longer hypothetical; they are history. And the prospect of “waiting it out” for the children’s sake becomes less compelling when the children will soon be out of the house.

We hear a version of the same line countless times from midlife clients: “If I stay, I will be living like this for the next 30 years.” That is very similar to the “now or never” thinking described in The Independent’s report, where midlife is seen as a turning point and longer life expectancy makes it harder to justify spending decades in a marriage that feels flat, disrespectful, or emotionally exhausting.(The Independent)

For many New York clients, the looming college years act as both a trigger and a deadline. They want clarity about where the children will live, who will pay for what, and how college and support obligations will align before applications are submitted. They also understand that the way they structure a divorce when the children are 16 or 17 will directly affect financial capacity to contribute to tuition, housing, and ongoing child support up to age 21. The decision to file is emotional, but the timing is often strategic.

The “Walkaway Wife” Meets New York’s Equitable Distribution and Maintenance Rules

The Independent’s article describes women who have quietly carried the emotional and domestic labor of the household, increasingly joined by the financial burden as well. Some of them are the primary breadwinner and also the default parent, yet they still end up dividing assets with a spouse who contributed less financially and less domestically.(The Independent) That sense of unfairness is something we see frequently among high-earning New York women initiating midlife divorce.

New York’s equitable distribution system does not simply split everything 50/50 by default, but in long-term marriages, a roughly equal division of marital assets is common unless there is a strong reason to deviate. The law recognizes nonfinancial contributions such as child-rearing and homemaking as contributions to marital wealth. That cuts in both directions.

For the “walkaway wife” who is also the primary earner, this can be a shock. They may feel, on a human level, that their spouse has underperformed both at home and at work, only to be “rewarded” with a substantial share of the house, retirement, and sometimes even a portion of their pension or deferred compensation. That is not a quirk of one judge; it is baked into how New York views marriage as an economic partnership.

On the other hand, for the midlife spouse who has focused on raising children and supporting a partner’s career, the law can be a lifeline. Equitable distribution and maintenance guidelines exist precisely so that a nonmonied spouse is not left starting over at 50 with no assets and minimal income.

The key is that none of this happens automatically. How the narrative of the marriage is framed, what evidence is presented, and how the interplay of contributions and sacrifices is argued can all influence how a judge views the fairness of a particular distribution or maintenance structure.

College-Age Children: Child Support, Add-Ons, and Tuition in Midlife Divorce

When children are nearing college, the legal landscape becomes more complex and more important. In New York, basic child support generally continues until age 21 unless a child is emancipated earlier. In many midlife divorces, that means you are negotiating support for older teens, plus potential add-ons such as unreimbursed medical expenses and extracurricular costs, while also planning for tuition, room and board, and related college expenses.

New York law does not automatically require parents to pay for college, but courts can and frequently do direct contributions to college costs, particularly in middle- and upper-income families where college was clearly contemplated. For a parent thinking about filing in their late 40s or early 50s, this means the divorce agreement is likely to be the main vehicle for allocating how much each parent will pay, what happens if a child chooses a more expensive school, how 529 or other savings plans will be used, and how college interacts with ongoing child support.

Midlife clients often underestimate how rigid these provisions can become once they are written into a judgment of divorce. They also underestimate how aggressively a former spouse may enforce these obligations years later. That is why it is critical to align the emotional decision to leave with a sober, detailed financial plan that accounts for at least three big realities at once: the tail end of child support, the front end of college expenses, and the need to fund your own retirement.

Retirement, Housing, and the Longer Financial Runway

The Independent’s piece highlights midlife women who discover, post-divorce, that the financial fallout is heavier than expected, particularly where they were already the chief breadwinner.(The Independent) We see the same risk here. Midlife divorce in New York has a longer runway than many people appreciate. A spouse in their late 40s or early 50s may easily have 30+ working years behind them and 25 or more years ahead. The decisions you make now will frame what your 60s and 70s look like.

For example, insisting on keeping the marital home so that a college-bound child has continuity may feel emotionally right, but a mortgage that forces you to work until 75 may not be a trade you want to make once the dust settles. Similarly, agreeing to waive maintenance in exchange for more liquid assets might seem appealing if you are eager to be fully independent, but for some midlife clients that choice produces real strain later, especially if income drops or health issues arise.

Retirement accounts, pensions, and deferred compensation are often the largest marital assets in a midlife divorce. They require careful analysis and, in many cases, Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs). They also need to be understood in light of tax consequences and investment risk, not just face value. A high-functioning midlife divorce strategy treats retirement security as central, not as an afterthought.

Emotional Liberation vs. Legal Consequences

One of the most striking themes in The Independent’s article is that many midlife women feel emotionally liberated after divorce, reporting higher levels of happiness and less concern about stigma or being single. At the same time, the report notes that divorced midlife women also experience higher rates of stress, depression, and financial difficulty compared to their peers who stayed married.(The Independent)

We see both sides in New York practice. A well-structured divorce can absolutely be the beginning of a healthier, more authentic phase of life. But when the emotional drive to get out is not matched with careful planning, the stress and financial fallout can be severe. The law will not retroactively fix a poorly negotiated settlement just because the outcome feels unfair years later.

The cultural trend toward “walkaway wives” reflects real empowerment and changing expectations. Midlife spouses are no longer willing to tolerate marriages that feel emotionally empty or fundamentally unequal. That cultural shift is fully present in New York litigation. But the legal system lags behind culture. It responds through statutes, guidelines, and slowly evolving case law. Navigating that gap between what feels just and what the law will do is where experienced matrimonial counsel makes the difference.

If You Are Considering Midlife Divorce in New York, Plan Before You Walk

If you see yourself in the patterns described in that article – years of carrying the emotional and domestic weight of the family, perhaps also the financial weight, and a growing realization that you do not want to live this way into your seventies – you are not alone. Midlife divorce, particularly in families with children nearing college, is increasingly common in New York.

But the fact that it is common does not mean it is simple. You need to understand how New York’s maintenance formulas, equitable distribution rules, child support guidelines, and college contribution expectations apply to your specific situation. You need to be clear about what it will take to keep or sell the house, how your retirement will be reshaped, and how your children’s college plans will be protected. And you need to make those decisions before you sign anything, not after.

The Law Offices of Mindin & Mindin, P.C. represents New Yorkers in precisely these kinds of high-stakes midlife divorces, with a particular focus on cases involving college-age or soon-to-be college-age children, complex assets, and evolving gender and income dynamics. We are fully attuned to both the cultural shifts and the legal realities.

If you are contemplating a midlife divorce in New York, or are already in one and unsure whether your rights and future are adequately protected, contact Mindin & Mindin, P.C. to schedule a confidential consultation. Call 888.501.3292 or reach out through our online form so we can help you align your decision to leave with a strategy that safeguards your children, your finances, and the next chapter of your life.

New York Matrimonial Law Changes for 2026

As 2026 approaches, New York divorce and family law is not standing still. Over the last eighteen months, Albany and the courts have rolled out a series of reforms that directly affect how child support is calculated and modified, how domestic violence is addressed, where you can file your divorce, and how financial disclosure is handled. Many of these changes come from legislation signed by Governor Kathy Hochul, paired with new rules and forms from the New York State Unified Court System.

If you are thinking about filing for divorce in 2026, or your case is already pending, you need to understand how these changes will reshape strategy, negotiation, and courtroom arguments. This guide walks through the key developments and what they mean in practical terms for New York matrimonial litigation.

Child Support Is Now More Individualized: Imputed Income and Incarceration

New York has amended both the Domestic Relations Law and the Family Court Act to change how courts attribute and impute income in child support cases, and how incarceration affects support. These amendments, codified in part in Laws of 2024, Chapters 327 and 357, are already in effect and will govern child support decisions throughout 2026 and beyond.

First, when a court decides to attribute or impute income to a parent, it can no longer simply pick a number based on vague notions of “earning capacity.” The statutes now require the court to consider specific circumstances of the parent, including assets, residence, employment and earning history, job skills, educational level, literacy, age, health, criminal record and other employment barriers, job search efforts, the local job market, prevailing wages, and the age and needs of the children. The court must make explicit written findings explaining the basis for any imputed income using these factors.

Second, the law has changed course on incarceration. In both Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b) and Family Court Act §§ 413 and 451, incarceration is now expressly not treated as “voluntary unemployment” and is no longer a bar to establishing a substantial change in circumstances for purposes of modifying child support. This eliminates prior carve-outs that punished some incarcerated parents and brings New York more in line with federal child support policy.

Third, when the court has insufficient income information because a party defaulted or withheld documentation, support orders must still be based on available information about that parent’s specific circumstances, using the same imputation factors. Those “best-information” orders can later be modified retroactively upward without requiring proof of a change in circumstances, once better financial information emerges.

In practice, these reforms significantly raise the stakes on financial disclosure and record-building. For a support recipient, there is more room to attack unrealistic earnings assumptions and to argue for upward modification once hidden income surfaces. For a payor, deliberate underemployment and incomplete financial disclosure are riskier than ever, because courts now have clearer statutory authority to impute income carefully and to revisit orders retroactively. For incarcerated parents, the door is now open to seek realistic modifications instead of being trapped by old orders that did not account for their actual situation.

Domestic Violence, Family Offenses, and Orders of Protection

Recent legislation also expands who can seek family offense protection and tightens rules around orders of protection in abuse and neglect proceedings.

Laws of 2024, Chapter 541 amended Family Court Act § 812 and related criminal procedure provisions to broaden who counts as “members of the same family or household.” The definition now clearly includes persons related by consanguinity or affinity to parties who are or have been in an “intimate relationship” as defined in § 812(e). In everyday terms, that means extended family connected to an intimate relationship can access the family offense process in Family Court. In high-conflict divorces where abuse spills over to grandparents, siblings, or new partners, these relatives now have a clearer path to seek orders of protection in the family system rather than being pushed solely into criminal court.

In November 2025, Governor Hochul also signed Senate Bill S8382, Chapter 572 of the Laws of 2025, amending Family Court Act § 1056 regarding orders of protection in child abuse and neglect (Article 10) proceedings. The statute clarifies the court’s authority to issue and structure orders of protection in connection with abuse and neglect findings, including how long those orders can remain in effect and how they interact with other dispositional orders. For families who have an Article 10 case running alongside a Supreme Court divorce or custody proceeding, this change can affect how protection orders are coordinated and how risk is managed.

For matrimonial clients, these developments matter in two ways. First, the range of people who can be brought under the umbrella of family-offense relief has expanded, which can shape safety planning and litigation strategy in divorces involving extended family conflict. Second, in cases involving ACS or neglect allegations, orders of protection issued in Family Court may now have a more clearly defined scope and duration, which must be coordinated carefully with Supreme Court custody and access orders. Mindin & Mindin, P.C. regularly navigates these overlapping jurisdictions to protect both safety and parental rights.

Where You Can File: New Venue Rules for Divorce and Custody

An amendment to CPLR 515, highlighted by the Unified Court System’s matrimonial update, tightens venue rules for matrimonial and related family actions. As of February 19, 2025, matrimonial actions and certain related custody and child support proceedings generally must be brought in a county where at least one party or a minor child resides, subject to limited exceptions for safety and confidentiality.(NY Courts)

This reform is designed to reduce forum shopping and to keep litigation grounded in the communities where families actually live. For spouses, it means you have less ability to pick a distant or tactically favorable county unless there is a compelling confidentiality or security reason.

Practically, this means that if you are deciding when and where to file in 2026, venue analysis must be front-loaded. Mindin & Mindin evaluates not only your county of residence, but also the child’s location, potential confidentiality concerns, and each court’s culture and backlog before recommending where to proceed.

New Financial Disclosure Rules and Forms in Supreme Court Matrimonial Parts

Financial transparency has always been central to New York divorce, but the mechanics are changing. The Unified Court System has approved a revised Statement of Net Worth form and a new spreadsheet-based Statement of Proposed Disposition, with amendments to 22 NYCRR 202.16 taking effect December 1, 2025.(NY Courts)

The new Statement of Proposed Disposition is no longer a simple narrative form. It is a detailed spreadsheet that requires each party to lay out, line by line, their proposed resolution of every major financial issue in the divorce: equitable distribution of each asset and liability, maintenance, child support, counsel fees, expert costs, and related items. The courts expect more precision, internal consistency, and transparency than before. At the same time, the rules provide for a short-form financial statement to be used in assessing eligibility for publicly funded counsel in matrimonial matters, reflecting a growing recognition that financial barriers should not prevent meaningful representation.(NY Courts)

The upshot for 2026 divorces is straightforward. You will be required to commit early on paper to a detailed financial position. Sloppy or incomplete forms will not only irritate the court but may undercut your credibility and leverage. For higher-net-worth cases with complex assets, properly using the spreadsheet format can actually help tell a clearer story about what a fair settlement looks like. Mindin & Mindin works closely with clients to prepare these disclosures in a way that aligns with litigation strategy and settlement goals rather than simply satisfying a bureaucratic requirement.

Confidentiality and Redaction Requirements

In addition to new forms, the courts have tightened rules on confidential information in filings. Amendments to 22 NYCRR 202.5(e), effective December 2, 2024, clarify what personal identifiers must be omitted or redacted from Supreme Court and County Court papers, and add a new subdivision addressing how redaction should be handled.

For matrimonial litigants, this means more scrutiny on how Social Security numbers, bank and account numbers, financial-institution identifiers, and other sensitive information appear in motion papers, exhibits, and proposed orders. If you are a business owner, a professional with sensitive client data, or a public figure, these rules are an important tool to limit the collateral damage of litigation. Our office routinely structures filings to protect confidentiality while still giving the court the information it needs to rule.

How These Changes Affect Strategy in 2026 Divorce Filings

Taken together, these statutory and rule changes shift the landscape in several important ways for anyone filing or litigating a New York divorce in 2026. Child support fights will hinge more heavily on careful evidence about actual earning capacity and job markets, and courts are now obligated to show their work when they impute income. Modification applications, particularly for previously incarcerated parents or cases built on thin evidence, must be analyzed under the new standards.

Venue selection is more constrained, which calls for earlier strategic conversations about where to file and whether any confidentiality or safety reasons justify alternative venues under CPLR 515.(NY Courts) Domestic violence and family-offense reforms broaden who can seek protection and how orders of protection function in intertwined Family Court and Supreme Court proceedings, which can alter the leverage and timing of custody and access disputes. New financial-disclosure forms and redaction rules increase the importance of disciplined, accurate paperwork and thoughtful use of sensitive information.(NY Courts)

There are also important proposals still pending in Albany for 2026 and beyond, including bills seeking to expand and clarify automatic orders in matrimonial actions and to modernize terminology around “parentage” in place of “paternity.” As of late 2025, some of these measures have not yet been signed into law, but they are on the radar and could further shift how courts handle custody, parentage, and financial protections in the coming years. Mindin & Mindin closely tracks these developments so that our advice reflects not only the law as it stands today, but where the law is clearly headed.

Speak With New York Matrimonial Counsel Who Live in This Law Every Day

If you are contemplating divorce in 2026, already in the middle of a New York matrimonial action, or trying to understand how these recent changes affect your support, custody, or property rights, you should not be guessing based on outdated information. The statutory amendments and court-rule changes described above are already shaping how judges think, how evidence must be presented, and where the pressure points lie in negotiation.

The Law Offices of Mindin & Mindin, P.C. focuses on New York divorce, custody, and family litigation at a high level of detail. We stay on the cutting edge of legislative and rule changes, from child support reforms and venue adjustments to orders of protection, and we translate those developments into concrete strategies tailored to your case.

If you want to understand exactly how the New York matrimonial law landscape intersects with your finances, your children, and your long-term goals, contact Mindin & Mindin, P.C. to schedule a confidential matrimonial consultation. The earlier you align your strategy with the current law, the more leverage and clarity you will have as you move through the divorce process.

Navigating the Holidays During a New York Divorce: Turning Stress into Strength

The holidays are supposed to feel familiar. The same decorations, the same recipes, the same people showing up year after year. When you are in the middle of a New York divorce or custody case, that sense of predictability disappears very quickly. Suddenly, you are wondering how you will divide holiday time with the children, what to say when relatives ask about your spouse, and whether any of the old traditions still make sense for your new reality.

If this is your first holiday season while a divorce is pending, it is normal to feel a mix of grief, anger, relief, and anxiety. You may look around your home and notice empty spaces where your spouse’s belongings used to be. You may feel a knot in your stomach as you think about your children leaving for the other parent’s house on a holiday morning. You may already be replaying in your mind the questions you know family members will ask and the judgments they may quietly make.

There is no way to make a divorce “feel” like it never happened. What you can do, however, is approach this holiday season with intention. You do not need to pretend everything is fine. You do not need to force yourself into fake cheer. You need a practical way to stabilize your home, protect your children, and reclaim some sense of control. That starts with how you think about the holidays in the context of your New York divorce.

Reframing the Holidays During a Pending New York Divorce

Most people in your situation ask themselves one question: “How am I going to get through this?” That mindset is understandable, but it keeps you in pure survival mode. A more useful question is, “Given where my life is right now, what kind of holiday season do I want to create for myself and my children?”

You cannot change the fact that your divorce or custody matter is pending in Supreme Court or Family Court. You can decide what your days actually look like between now and the new year. That may mean simplifying the usual obligations, cutting out traditions that were mostly about pleasing in-laws, or rethinking how you spend the days when the children are with the other parent.

Shifting from “getting through it” to “designing it” does not minimize the pain. It simply acknowledges that you still have agency. You are not a passive bystander to your own holidays. You are allowed to make different choices now that your family structure has changed. In a very real way, this season becomes the first test of how you will live your post-divorce life: reactive and dictated by others, or deliberate and aligned with your values.

Designing New Traditions That Actually Work for Your Family

Divorce in New York almost always results in a new parenting schedule. Temporary orders, written stipulations, or final custody agreements often spell out who has the children for specific holidays, alternating years or splitting days. On paper, it can feel clinical. In real life, those schedules define how your holidays feel.

Rather than trying to recreate past years exactly, it can be more productive to accept that the structure has changed and build new traditions around it. If your children will spend Christmas Eve with the other parent, you might decide that your side of the family will now treat December 23rd as your main celebration. If Thanksgiving will be alternated annually, you can turn the “off” year into a travel or volunteering day instead of sitting in an empty house staring at the clock.

Think about what genuinely matters to you and your children, not what looks good on social media or satisfies extended family expectations. Maybe you want smaller, quieter gatherings instead of large, chaotic parties. Maybe you want to focus on experiences rather than feel pressured to overspend on gifts. Maybe you want to make giving back a central part of the season by involving your children in age-appropriate charitable work.

You do not need to replace every past tradition at once. Start with one or two intentional changes that you can actually sustain. The goal is to create rituals that reflect the life you are building now, not to stage a performance that hides the reality of your divorce. Over time, these small decisions add up. They become the “new normal” your children will remember.

Managing Extended Family and Holiday Boundaries

The legal process is often easier to manage than extended family dynamics. Complaints are filed, motions are argued, orders are issued. Family holidays are not nearly as structured. Relatives may take sides in the divorce, make comments in front of the children, or push you for information you are not ready to share. Some may try to pressure you into attending gatherings that are more about appearances than support.

You are allowed to protect yourself from that. One of the healthiest steps you can take is to decide in advance what conversations you will and will not have. You do not owe anyone a detailed breakdown of your case, your spouse’s conduct, or your legal strategy. Simple, consistent responses work best. For example, “We are working through it with our lawyers and the court, and for now I am focused on the children,” is often enough. If someone pushes, you can calmly repeat a version of that answer or remove yourself from the conversation.

You can also say no to events that you know will leave you drained or destabilized. There is no prize for attending every gathering you previously attended as a married couple. This year may require a smaller guest list or different locations. That is not a failure; it is a boundary. In some cases, hosting a modest gathering yourself, on your terms, allows you to control the environment and surround yourself only with people who are genuinely supportive.

If your divorce is contentious, it is also wise to think about evidence. Avoid speaking about your spouse or the case in a way that you would not want repeated in a courtroom or quoted in an affidavit. Assume that texts, emails, and even social media posts made during the holidays could be scrutinized later if custody or access is in dispute. Protect your peace and your case by keeping your communications measured and focused on the children.

Helping Your Children Feel Secure Under a New Schedule

For parents, the most challenging part of the holiday season during divorce is usually the children’s experience. Children in New York divorce and custody matters are often adjusting to a new parenting schedule at the exact time when all of their peers seem to be enjoying “perfect” family celebrations. Even if they are excited about time with both parents, they may also feel divided, guilty, or worried about hurting someone’s feelings.

Your job is not to erase their discomfort, but to give them stability and reassurance. The more grounded you are in your own plan, the more secure your children will feel. Let them know clearly where they will be on each key day. If there is an existing order or written holiday schedule, follow it and communicate the details in age-appropriate terms. Surprises may feel fun in other contexts; in the middle of a divorce, predictability is far more valuable.

Be honest that some things are changing, but frame it without blame. Instead of saying, “We can’t do things the way we used to because of the divorce,” you might say, “Our family is doing some things differently this year, and we are creating some new traditions just for us.” Invite their input where it makes sense. Ask which parts of past holidays they would really like to keep and look for ways to incorporate those elements into your new plans.

Most importantly, keep the message consistent: both parents still love them, even if the adults are no longer together. Children should not feel responsible for the success of anyone’s holiday or placed in the middle of disputes about time or travel. If there are disagreements with the other parent about the holiday schedule, address those through counsel or the court, not through the children.

Why Having a New York Divorce Lawyer Matters During the Holidays

The emotional and logistical challenges of the holidays are hard enough. When you layer unresolved legal issues on top of that, the stress multiplies. Questions about holiday parenting time, travel out of state, exchanging gifts, and even who pays for flights can quickly escalate if there is no clear framework in place.

Experienced New York divorce and family law counsel can help you bring order to this chaos. At the Law Offices of Mindin & Mindin, P.C., we routinely negotiate and enforce holiday schedules, travel provisions, and temporary parenting arrangements for clients across New York. We understand how New York courts typically address holiday access, out-of-state travel, and disputes over pick-up and drop-off logistics, and we use that knowledge to anticipate problems before they erupt.

In practical terms, that can mean going to court for a temporary order that sets a holiday schedule if one does not already exist, seeking clarification of vague language in an existing stipulation, or addressing violations such as a parent unreasonably withholding the children over a holiday. It can also mean advising you on what is worth litigating now versus what can wait until after the holiday season, so you are not spending your time off in constant crisis mode.

When your case is being actively managed by a lawyer who understands both the legal landscape and the emotional stakes, you are free to put your energy where it belongs: into your children and your own well-being. You sleep better at night knowing that someone is watching the calendar, monitoring deadlines, and prepared to act if the other side chooses to turn the holidays into a battleground.

This Holiday Season Can Be a Turning Point. Mindin & Mindin, P.C. Can Help You Use It Wisely.

You do not control the fact that your divorce or custody matter is pending. You do control how you show up for yourself and your children during this first holiday season under a new reality. Every boundary you set, every thoughtful tradition you start, and every step you take to stabilize your legal situation becomes part of the foundation for the life you are building on the other side of this case.

At the Law Offices of Mindin & Mindin, P.C., we help New Yorkers navigate high-conflict divorces and complex custody matters with a focus on strategy, stability, and long-term outcomes. If you are worried about how the holidays will work under your current schedule, if you anticipate a fight over travel or parenting time, or if you simply want clear guidance before the season begins, you do not have to guess your way through it.

Speak with a New York divorce and family law attorney who understands what is at stake for you and your children. Contact Mindin & Mindin, P.C. to schedule a confidential consultation. Call 888.501.3292 or reach out through our online form so we can help you protect your holidays, your rights, and your family’s future.

When Relocation Isn’t Clear-Cut: Second Department Sends Nassau Custody Case Back for Hearing in Kataeva v. Kataev

In Kataeva v. Kataev (2025 NY Slip Op 06051, 2d Dept., Nov. 5, 2025), the Appellate Division underscored a key principle in New York relocation and custody modification law: even short-distance moves can trigger a best interests analysis and courts must hold a hearing when the facts are in dispute.

This Nassau County case involved divorced parents who shared joint legal custody under a 2022 stipulation granting the mother primary residential custody. The stipulation barred relocation beyond 15 miles from the marital home in Garden City without the father’s consent or a court order. When the mother moved approximately 13 miles away to Massapequa and enrolled the children in a new school district, the father sought to enjoin the relocation, requesting primary residential custody or, alternatively, that the mother handle transportation for his parenting time.

The Supreme Court denied his motion without a hearing; however, the Second Department reversed. Citing Tropea v. Tropea (87 N.Y.2d 727) and its progeny, the appellate court held that relocation disputes must be determined on their merits, with the “predominant emphasis” on the children’s best interests even if the relocation is within the approved distance.

Even when a move appears to fall within an agreed-upon mileage restriction, that stipulation alone is not determinative; courts must evaluate whether the relocation truly serves the children’s welfare, considering the Tropea factors such as stability, educational continuity, and the impact on the relationship with the noncustodial parent.

By remanding the matter for a full evidentiary hearing, the Court reaffirmed that no relocation, no matter how minor, should bypass judicial scrutiny when the parties disagree about its impact on the children.

For Nassau County and New York City parents, this decision reinforces two critical takeaways:

1. A geographic limit in a custody stipulation does not automatically authorize a move.

2. Any contested relocation demands a full, fact-specific best interests hearing.

If you are facing a relocation dispute or need to modify an existing custody order, the family law attorneys at Mindin & Mindin, P.C. have extensive experience handling complex relocation and modification cases in Nassau County, Queens, Manhattan, and throughout New York City.

Contact us today to schedule a confidential consultation and protect your parental rights.

Defamation Claims in High-Conflict and High-Profile New York City Divorce

In today’s world of digital communication and social media, defamation claims are increasingly intersecting with divorce litigation, especially in high-conflict or high-profile cases where reputation and credibility are everything. A recent decision from New York’s Appellate Division, Marcigliano v. Coulianidis (2025 NY Slip Op 05945, 2d Dep’t), highlights the high legal bar for defamation claims arising from statements made during family court proceedings.

Absolute Privilege in Judicial Proceedings

In Marcigliano, the plaintiff who was the maternal grandfather in a custody-related matter sued the child’s father for defamation based on statements made in a petition alleging that the grandfather’s home was unsafe and abusive. The Second Department dismissed the case, reaffirming a long-standing rule:

Statements made in the course of a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged as long as they are material and pertinent to the issues before the court.

This means that when parties, attorneys, or witnesses make statements within court pleadings or testimony, no matter how harsh or damaging, those statements cannot serve as the basis for a defamation lawsuit, provided they are relevant to the case.

Strict Pleading Standards for Defamation in New York

Outside of the courtroom, defamation claims must meet stringent pleading requirements under CPLR 3016(a). A plaintiff must:

• Identify the exact words alleged to be defamatory,

• Specify the time, place, and manner of the statement, and

• Identify to whom the statement was made.

Failure to meet these requirements almost always leads to dismissal. This standard protects individuals from frivolous or retaliatory defamation claims—especially in emotionally charged divorce cases where accusations often fly.

The Implications for Divorce and Custody Litigation

In high-conflict or high-profile divorces, allegations of abuse, neglect, or financial misconduct can spread quickly—both in and outside the courtroom. Yet this decision underscores a critical distinction:

• In-court statements (such as those made in affidavits, petitions, or during testimony) are absolutely protected.

• Out-of-court statements—particularly those made to third parties, on social media, or to employers—may still expose a party to defamation liability if false and malicious.

For high-net-worth individuals or public figures, where reputation management is crucial, navigating these boundaries with strategic legal counsel is essential.

Strategic Counsel for High-Stakes Cases

At Mindin & Mindin, P.C., we represent clients in high-conflict and high-profile divorce and custody cases throughout New York, including matters involving:

• Defamation and false allegations,

• Reputational damage and press exposure,

• Orders of protection and custody disputes, and

• Strategic litigation management in sensitive, public cases.

We understand the stakes when accusations threaten not only your parental rights but your career and public image. Our approach combines experienced litigation with media-sensitive strategy to protect your name, your rights, and your future.

If you’re facing a high-conflict divorce or custody case where reputational issues are at play, contact Mindin & Mindin, P.C. at (888) 501-3292 or click here to schedule a confidential strategy session with our team.

Guardianship and “Extraordinary Circumstances” in New York Custody Law

When a parent loses custody or guardianship of a child to a non-parent, such as a relative, the courts in New York apply one of the highest legal standards available — the “extraordinary circumstances” test. The recent decision in Matter of T.G.V. (App. Div. 1st Dept., Oct. 2025) provides a clear and instructive example of how this standard operates in real-world family law disputes.

The Legal Standard: Extraordinary Circumstances

Under New York law, a biological parent’s right to custody is constitutionally protected and will not be disturbed unless a non-parent can demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances”, a very high burden to meet. These circumstances typically involve long-term separation between parent and child, parental unfitness, abandonment, or other serious conditions showing that the parent has abdicated their parental responsibilities.

Once such circumstances are proven, the court may then proceed to a best interests analysis, examining what arrangement serves the child’s emotional, educational, and physical well-being. This two-step process protects parental rights while ensuring that children remain in safe, stable environments.

The Court’s Application in Matter of T.G.V.

In this case, the Family Court granted guardianship of a child to the paternal aunt over the biological mother’s objection. The evidence established that the mother had been largely absent from the child’s life for over a decade. At the same time, the aunt had provided consistent, stable care, particularly following the father’s death.

The Appellate Division affirmed that the aunt met her burden to prove extraordinary circumstances under Family Court Act §1055-b(a)(iv)(A), emphasizing that:

• The mother’s prolonged absence and minimal involvement in the child’s daily life constituted a disruption of custody.

• The aunt’s role as the child’s full-time caregiver, managing education, healthcare, and stability, created a strong psychological and parental bond.

The court also reiterated that expert testimony is not required to prove psychological bonding; credible lay evidence of a strong, parental-like relationship is sufficient.

Why This Case Matters for New York Custody Law

The Matter of T.G.V. decision underscores several key principles for family and custody disputes in New York:

• Length of Separation Matters: Extended absence or minimal parental involvement can, over time, rise to the level of “extraordinary circumstances.”

• Caregiver Stability Is Crucial: Courts prioritize the child’s stability and emotional security over the biological parent’s reemergence.

• Evidence Beyond Biology: Demonstrated caregiving, educational involvement, and emotional connection often carry more weight than biological ties alone.

For parents and relatives involved in custody disputes, this ruling reinforces that the Family Court’s focus will always return to what environment best supports the child’s ongoing growth and development, not simply the parent’s desire to reclaim custody after years of absence.

Understanding Guardianship and Custody Modifications

If you are a parent or relative seeking to obtain or modify custody in New York, it’s essential to understand that the legal standard for doing so depends heavily on the nature of your relationship with the child and your demonstrated involvement. For non-parents, proving “extraordinary circumstances” is a demanding process requiring detailed evidence and often testimony about the child’s living situation, care history, and emotional bonds.

At Mindin & Mindin, P.C., we have extensive experience handling complex custody matters across New York City, Long Island, and surrounding counties. Our attorneys are well-versed in the nuances of cases involving extended family caregivers, parental rehabilitation, and modifications to existing custody orders.

If you are facing a custody dispute, contact Mindin & Mindin, P.C. at 888.501.3292 or click this link to schedule a confidential case evaluation.

Custody Relocation in New York: Tropea and the Role of Credibility

Custody relocation cases are among the most difficult decisions New York courts face. When one parent seeks to relocate a child out of state or to another region of New York, the court must carefully balance the competing interests of both parents, always focusing on the child's best interests.

The guiding case in New York is the Court of Appeals’ landmark decision in Tropea v. Tropea (87 NY2d 727 [1996]) which applies to cases that have an underlying custody plan in place and one parent seeks a modification to relocate. Unlike rigid rules that barred relocation absent “exceptional circumstances,” the Tropea court established a flexible, fact-specific standard that remains the law today.

The Tropea Factors

Under Tropea, courts must consider all relevant circumstances when deciding a relocation request, including:

• Reasons for the Move and Opposition – Why does the custodial parent want to relocate, and why does the noncustodial parent oppose?

• Impact on the Noncustodial Parent’s Relationship – How will the move affect the frequency and quality of parenting time?

• Enhancement of the Child’s Life – Does the move improve the child’s educational, economic, or emotional well-being?

• Visitation Alternatives – Can meaningful access be preserved through extended or creative parenting schedules?

• Overall Best Interests of the Child – Every factor must be weighed in light of what best promotes the child’s stability, security, and development.

No single factor is determinative; the court considers the totality of the circumstances to decide whether relocation is in the child’s best interests.

Why Credibility Matters

While the legal framework is clear, the outcome of relocation cases often turns on the credibility of the parents. Family Court judges are in the best position to assess testimony, demeanor, and consistency. For example:

• A parent who can clearly demonstrate concrete benefits for the child—such as better schools, safer housing, or stronger family support—will be more persuasive.

• Conversely, vague assertions about lifestyle improvements or unsubstantiated claims about job opportunities may be viewed skeptically.

• Courts also scrutinize whether each parent is likely to foster the child’s relationship with the other parent. Evidence of interference, hostility, or refusal to encourage communication can weigh heavily against relocation.

Because credibility assessments play such a critical role, a well-prepared case with supporting documentation—school reports, expert testimony, financial records—can make the difference between approval and denial of a relocation request.

The Bottom Line

Relocation cases are highly fact-sensitive. The Tropea standard ensures flexibility but places a heavy burden on the relocating parent to prove that the move will enhance the child’s life without destroying the other parent’s relationship.

For parents facing these disputes, it is essential to work with experienced family law counsel who can present compelling evidence, anticipate credibility challenges, and propose parenting plans that preserve meaningful access for both parents.

📞 If you are considering a custody modification or relocation in New York, contact our office at 888.501.3292 to schedule a consultation. We can help you navigate the complexities of Tropea and protect your parental rights.

Modifying Child Support in New York: What Courts Require When Income Decreases

When financial circumstances change, parents often seek a modification of child support obligations. But in New York, obtaining a downward modification is far from automatic. Courts apply strict standards to ensure that a reduction in child support is not used as a way to avoid responsibility.

A recent appellate decision, Harmelink v. Harmelink 2025 NY Slip Op 04708 (2025), highlights the burden a parent faces when claiming a substantial decrease in income.

The Legal Standard for Child Support Modification in New York

Under Family Court Act § 451(3), a child support order may be modified if:

1. There has been a substantial change in circumstances, or

2. Either party’s gross income has changed by 15% or more since the order was entered, last modified, or adjusted.

At first glance, a decrease of 15% or more may seem enough to justify a reduction. But New York law requires additional proof:

• The decrease in income must have occurred through no fault of the parent, and

• The parent must show diligent efforts to find comparable employment consistent with their qualifications and earning capacity.

The Court’s Findings in Harmelink v. Harmelink

In Harmelink, the father claimed his income dropped by 55%, well above the statutory threshold. However, the court found his request deficient because he:

• Offered only vague, conclusory statements that he was “compelled” to leave his employment.

• Failed to provide competent proof (such as termination letters, business records, or credible testimony) that the job loss was beyond his control.

• Did not demonstrate any diligent effort to obtain comparable work in line with his prior earning capacity.

Because of these failures, the court denied his request without even granting a hearing.

What This Means for Parents Seeking a Downward Modification

This case underscores an important lesson: a payor parent cannot simply claim financial hardship without evidence. Courts require concrete, verifiable documentation. Examples of what may help include:

• Proof of termination or layoff (e.g., employer’s letter).

• Records showing applications for new employment or interviews.

• Evidence of reduced industry opportunities, such as job market data.

• Documentation of re-training or efforts to transition into a comparable field.

Without this, courts may assume the parent has voluntarily reduced income, a scenario that rarely justifies lowering child support.

Why New York Courts Apply Strict Child Support Modification Standards

New York courts place the child’s best interests above all else. Since child support is designed to maintain a child’s standard of living, judges are wary of reductions that could deprive the child of necessary financial resources. By requiring proof of both involuntary job loss and diligent job search efforts, the law ensures that only genuine hardships lead to a modification.

Key Takeaway

If you are seeking a child support modification in New York City and the surrounding counties:

• A decrease in income over 15% gives you the right to apply,

• But you must prove it was not your fault, and

• Show that you are actively working to restore your earning capacity.

Failure to meet these standards, as seen in Harmelink v. Harmelink, can result in denial of relief without a hearing.

Speak to an Experienced New York Child Support Attorney

Child support modification cases are fact-sensitive and highly scrutinized by the courts. If you’ve experienced a job loss, business downturn, or other change in income, it’s critical to prepare the right documentation and legal arguments from the start.

At Mindin & Mindin, P.C., we represent parents across New York City and surrounding counties in child support and custody matters. We understand how courts apply these standards and can guide you through the process to protect your rights while ensuring your child’s needs are met.

📞 Call us today at 888.501.3292 or schedule a FREE CASE EVALUATION.

Shared Custody Child Support Awards in New York: Understanding How the Law Applies

Child support in New York can be complex—especially in shared 50/50 custody situations where parenting time is divided between both parents. Many parents mistakenly believe that equal or near-equal parenting time automatically means no child support will be awarded. New York law says otherwise.

How New York Defines Custody in Child Support Cases

Under New York’s Child Support Standards Act (CSSA), the court must first determine who the custodial parent is for purposes of calculating child support even in shared or joint custody situations.

• Custodial Parent: The parent with whom the child spends a majority of overnights in a year.

• Noncustodial Parent: The parent who has fewer overnights. This parent is generally responsible for paying child support.

Importantly, the law focuses on overnights, not waking hours, when determining who has primary custody for child support purposes.

The CSSA Formula Still Applies to Shared Custody

In Bast v. Rossoff, New York’s highest court made clear that the CSSA formula applies to shared custody arrangements just as it does in sole custody cases. The court first calculates the basic child support obligation using the standard three-step formula, then determines which parent is the custodial parent.

If One Parent Has the Majority of Overnights

That parent is the custodial parent and will generally receive child support from the other parent regardless of the label “joint custody” in the parenting plan.

If Parenting Time Is Truly Equal

In cases where neither parent has the majority of overnights, courts often follow the rule from Baraby v. Baraby:

• The parent with the higher income is deemed the noncustodial parent and will pay child support to the other parent.

This approach has been adopted by the Second, Third, and Fourth Departments of the Appellate Division.

The First Department’s Approach

The First Department (covering Manhattan and the Bronx) follows a stricter rule, as seen in Rubin v. Salla:

• A custodial parent cannot be ordered to pay child support to a noncustodial parent.

• Overnights are the decisive factor, not waking hours or economic disparity.

This means that even if the custodial parent earns significantly more, they won’t be ordered to pay child support to the other parent unless the overnights are truly equal.

Key Takeaways for Parents in Shared Custody Cases

• Equal time does not always mean no child support.

• Overnights control, not daytime hours.

• If parenting time is exactly equal, the parent with the higher income usually pays child support.

• Different appellate courts in New York may apply slightly different interpretations, so where your case is heard matters.

• Courts will not deviate from the statutory formula unless following it would be “unjust or inappropriate” under CSSA paragraph (f) factors.

How This Impacts Your Case

If you are in a shared custody situation or negotiating one, it’s critical to understand that child support can still be awarded even when parenting time is split evenly. The court will examine the exact schedule, count overnights, and review each parent’s income before making a determination.

Because appellate interpretations vary, and because calculating child support in shared custody cases requires precise legal strategy, having an experienced New York matrimonial and family law attorney on your side can make a substantial difference.

Contact Us for Guidance on Shared Custody Child Support in New York

At Mindin & Mindin, P.C., we have extensive experience navigating the complexities of child support in shared custody situations. Whether you are negotiating an agreement or preparing for litigation, we will work to protect your rights and ensure the child support calculation is fair.

📞 Call us today at 888.501.3292 or schedule your free consultation.

Relocation and Custody Modifications in New York: Lessons from Jasmine M. v. Albert M. (2025)

Relocation cases in child custody disputes remain some of the most challenging matters in New York Family Court. The recent First Department decision in Matter of Jasmine M. v. Albert M. (2025) offers valuable insight into how courts analyze requests to modify custody when one parent seeks to move, especially when that move would impact the other parent’s access to the child.

In this case, the mother sought to relocate with the parties’ child, prompting a custody modification proceeding. The father opposed the move, arguing that relocation would disrupt his regular parenting time and negatively affect his relationship with the child. The Family Court initially denied the mother’s relocation request, finding that it was not in the child’s best interests. The mother appealed.

On appeal, the First Department examined whether the proposed relocation would serve the child’s best interests by considering factors established under New York law, including:

The reasons for the move

The impact on the child’s relationship with both parents

The potential economic, educational, and emotional benefits of relocation

The feasibility of preserving the noncustodial parent’s relationship with the child through meaningful visitation

The Court’s Decision

The appellate court upheld the denial of the mother’s relocation request. It found that the mother failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that the move would improve the child’s life in a way that outweighed the loss of regular and consistent contact with the father. The court emphasized that:

The child’s close relationship with both parents was a critical factor.

The proposed relocation plan did not provide adequate safeguards for maintaining the father-child bond.

The evidence did not convincingly show that the relocation would provide significant educational or financial benefits.

Impact on Future Relocation Cases in New York

This decision reinforces several important principles for parents considering relocation in New York custody cases:

1. Best Interests Standard is Paramount – The moving parent must provide compelling evidence that the relocation will substantially enhance the child’s well-being.

2. Burden of Proof Lies with the Relocating Parent – Without clear, credible evidence of benefits to the child, courts are unlikely to approve relocation.

3. Preserving the Parent-Child Relationship is Key – Courts will scrutinize whether the relocation plan realistically allows the noncustodial parent to maintain a strong relationship with the child.

4. Economic and Educational Benefits Must Be Concrete – Speculative or marginal improvements will not outweigh the loss of consistent access to a parent.

For parents in New York, Matter of Jasmine M. v. Albert M. is a clear reminder: if you are seeking to relocate with your child, you must be prepared to present a detailed, well-supported plan showing that the move is in the child’s best interests and that meaningful contact with the other parent will be preserved.

Considering Relocation or Facing a Custody Modification?
The experienced family law attorneys at Mindin & Mindin, P.C. can guide you through New York’s complex relocation and custody modification process. Contact us today at 888.501.3292 or schedule a free consultation on our calendar.

How New York Courts Handle Child Support and Spousal Maintenance Above the Statutory Income Cap: A Look at DeCrescenzo v. Suslak

When child support and spousal maintenance are at stake in high-net-worth divorces, New York courts have wide discretion—especially when combined parental income exceeds the statutory cap. A recent case from the Appellate Division, Third Department, DeCrescenzo v. Suslak, 2025 NY Slip Op 03114, provides critical guidance on how judges weigh lifestyle, earning capacity, and financial needs when setting support awards well above standard guidelines.

Key Takeaways from DeCrescenzo v. Suslak

1. Courts May Award Child Support on Income Far Above the Cap

In this case, the court upheld a child support award based on a combined parental income of $635,000, far above New York’s statutory cap of $183,000 (as of 2025). The award of $13,657 per month in child support was supported by:

The children’s need to maintain a lifestyle consistent with the family’s pre-divorce standard of living;

The significant disparity in incomes between the parties;

The father’s ability to pay based on his high earnings (nearly $950,000 annually).

This ruling confirms that when high earners divorce, the court will go well beyond the cap if the children’s needs and lifestyle justify it.

2. Imputing Income: Not Always Required

The husband argued that the court should have imputed a full-time salary of $95,000 to the wife, a part-time physical therapist with a master’s degree. But the court declined, citing her ongoing role as the children's primary caregiver and the lack of evidence that she was avoiding employment in bad faith.

This reaffirms that childcare responsibilities and good-faith part-time employment can justify the court declining to impute full-time income to a lower-earning spouse.

3. Maintenance Awards Reflect Disparity and Lifestyle

The court awarded the wife $5,000 per month in spousal maintenance, consisting of the statutory presumptive amount plus a discretionary enhancement. Factors influencing the award included:

The parties’ significant income disparity;

The wife’s caregiving duties and limited earnings;

The pre-divorce standard of living;

Loss of health insurance coverage post-divorce.

Courts consider both short-term transition needs and long-term economic disparities when awarding spousal maintenance in high-income divorces.

4. No Imputed Investment Income Without Proof

The husband attempted to argue that the wife could invest her distributive award and earn income. However, the court rejected this as speculative, noting the funds had not yet been invested and were potentially earmarked for a future home purchase.

Courts need concrete evidence, not assumptions, to impute investment income in support calculations.

What This Means for High-Income Divorce in New York

If you're involved in a divorce where parental income exceeds the statutory cap, know that the court has the power to:

-Deviate significantly from guideline support amounts;

-Consider lifestyle, needs, and earning capacity over formulas;

-Decline to impute income without clear evidence of underemployment or bad faith.

Judges also take a fact-specific, especially when children’s well-being and caregiving responsibilities are involved. There is a significant amount of judicial discretion here so this fact pattern can yield different results based on your jurist.

Talk to a High-Income Divorce Attorney in New York

High-net-worth divorce cases require strategic advocacy and a deep understanding of New York's discretionary approach to child support and maintenance above the cap. At Mindin & Mindin, P.C., we regularly represent clients in complex financial and custody matters—including cases involving seven-figure incomes, luxury assets, and contested support awards.

📞 Call us today at 888.501.3292
💼 Or schedule a confidential case evaluation 💼

Protect your financial future and ensure a fair outcome—especially when the stakes are high.

Billionaire Divorce Without a Prenup: What Would Happen to David Geffen in New York?

A recent headline has captivated attention: Billionaire David Geffen, 82, files for divorce from his 32-year-old husband without a prenup. The absence of a prenuptial agreement, particularly in a high-net-worth scenario, often generates speculation about how much wealth is potentially at risk. But does filing for divorce without a prenup truly put billions of dollars in jeopardy? Let’s break down the real implications, especially if this scenario played out under New York divorce law.

David Geffen Files for Divorce from Husband David Armstrong

David Geffen’s Situation: What’s Actually at Risk?

David Geffen has an estimated net worth of approximately $8.7 billion. The bulk of Geffen’s wealth was accumulated decades before his recent marriage. Under New York law, this distinction is crucial, as only marital assets—those assets acquired during the marriage—are subject to equitable distribution in a divorce. Separate property, which includes:

• Assets owned before marriage

• Inheritances

• Gifts specifically to one spouse

• Personal injury compensation

generally remain untouched by divorce proceedings.

In Geffen’s case, since his significant fortune existed before his marriage, most of his assets would remain safely classified as separate property. Without a prenup, however, the real issue becomes distinguishing clearly what is separate and what might inadvertently become marital due to commingling or unclear boundaries.

Potential Issues Without a Prenup in New York

1. Commingling of Assets

Without a prenup, there’s always a risk that separate assets may inadvertently become marital assets. For example, placing separate funds into joint accounts or using them to improve marital property might complicate the classification of those funds, potentially opening the door for claims by a spouse.

2. Increased Legal Complexity and Cost

Even if most assets are clearly separate, the absence of a prenuptial agreement means disputes about asset classification or potential commingling can lead to extensive—and expensive—litigation. Legal battles over financial disclosures and valuation of assets can become costly and stressful, even for a billionaire.

3. Spousal Support Considerations

Without a prenup clearly outlining expectations, spousal support (maintenance) becomes a more contentious issue. In New York, maintenance awards depend upon the duration of the marriage, the lifestyle enjoyed by both parties, the health and earning capacity of each spouse, and other equitable factors. While a short marriage like Geffen’s reduces potential support obligations, it doesn't eliminate them entirely.

4. Privacy Concerns

Without a prenuptial agreement, divorce litigation can become public and contentious, potentially exposing personal financial details and other sensitive information. Prenups often simplify matters, preserving privacy and ensuring swift, amicable resolutions.

The Takeaway: Protect Your Assets with a Prenup

David Geffen’s divorce highlights an essential truth: even when significant wealth is primarily held separately, the absence of a prenuptial agreement can complicate the divorce process. A carefully drafted prenup can eliminate uncertainty by clearly defining separate and marital assets, reducing the risk of unintended financial exposure, costly litigation, and public scrutiny.

If you’re considering marriage—especially if you have significant assets or anticipate acquiring substantial wealth—a prenuptial agreement is your best protection. Don’t leave your financial future to chance.

Secure Your Future: Get Expert Legal Advice Today

At Mindin & Mindin, we specialize in drafting comprehensive prenuptial agreements tailored to your unique circumstances. If you have questions about protecting your assets before marriage, contact our experienced matrimonial attorneys today to schedule a consultation.

Don’t wait until it’s too late—contact us to secure your future.

Can the Court Order the Sale of Your Marital Home During a Divorce in New York? Understanding the Unusual Decision in FR v. AR (2025)

In a recent groundbreaking matrimonial decision in FR v. AR (2025 NY Slip Op 50549(U)), Judge Dane of the Supreme Court of Nassau County made a remarkable ruling: he permitted the sale of a marital home during a pending divorce. This decision is particularly significant, as traditionally, New York courts have been hesitant to authorize the sale of marital homes before a divorce judgment, unless both spouses agree.

Here, we'll explore why this decision was made, what makes it so unique, and how it may impact your divorce proceedings in New York.

Background of the Case: Why Did the Court Allow the Sale?

The central issue in FR v. AR revolved around the financial distress surrounding the marital residence, which was titled solely in the husband's name. Historically, under the landmark case Kahn v. Kahn (1977), New York courts could not order the sale of a marital home owned jointly as tenants by the entirety unless the marital status was legally altered through divorce, annulment, or separation.

But what if the home isn't jointly owned? The Court in FR v. AR had to decide if it could distinguish this case from Kahn since the property was solely titled in the husband's name. Ultimately, the Court determined it could—and ordered the immediate sale of the home. This decision broke new ground by clarifying that courts possess the authority to act to preserve marital assets during the divorce process, especially in cases of financial misconduct or risk of foreclosure.

Key Factors Influencing the Court’s Decision:

Several critical considerations led the Court to its unprecedented decision to permit the home’s immediate sale:

1. Single Ownership (Sole Title)

Unlike typical scenarios where spouses hold joint title (tenancy by the entirety), in this case, the marital residence was solely titled to the husband. This single ownership was key, allowing the Court to distinguish this case from the Kahn precedent and opening the door for judicial intervention to protect marital equity.

2. Risk of Financial Waste and Foreclosure

The husband stopped paying the mortgage shortly after initiating divorce proceedings, despite earning approximately $166,000 per year. This deliberate non-payment placed the home in imminent danger of foreclosure. The Court found this financial misconduct unacceptable and ruled that immediate sale was necessary to preserve the significant equity ($288,000) in the home.

3. Equitable Distribution and Preservation of Marital Assets

New York’s Domestic Relations Law (DRL § 236B) mandates that marital property must be preserved to ensure a fair distribution at the end of a divorce. The Court emphasized its duty to prevent wasteful dissipation of assets—particularly when a spouse's deliberate actions endanger the equity of marital property. Here, the Court held that preserving the equity by selling the property immediately was far preferable to allowing foreclosure to erode its value.

4. Economic Partnership and Its Termination

Drawing from New York Court of Appeals decisions (Kaplan v. Kaplan, Mesholam v. Mesholam), the Court underscored that a marriage is an economic partnership, considered dissolved once divorce proceedings begin. As a result, courts have the authority—and even responsibility—to preserve marital assets during the divorce, including ordering the pendente lite (during litigation) sale of a marital home when necessary.

What Does This Mean for Divorcing Couples in New York?

This decision clearly signals to spouses that New York courts are increasingly willing to protect marital assets—even if it means ordering the sale of property before finalizing the divorce, particularly in cases of financial misconduct or impending foreclosure. The ruling demonstrates that:

• Courts may step in if there’s clear evidence of wasteful financial behavior.

• Sole title ownership can significantly affect the court’s authority to act during a divorce.

• Immediate sale of the marital residence can now be seen as an essential tool to prevent asset dissipation.

Why This Case Matters for Your Divorce

If you're facing a divorce and are concerned about preserving or managing your marital home, this decision highlights the importance of having a carefully strategized plan. It also illustrates that immediate action can be taken by the courts if one spouse attempts to financially harm the other through deliberate non-payment of mortgages or other financial obligations.

Takeaways for Protecting Your Interests:

• Act Quickly: If financial misconduct occurs, don't delay in seeking court intervention.

• Document Everything: Maintain thorough records of payments, communications, and attempts to mitigate financial loss.

• Understand Asset Ownership: Be aware of how assets are titled and the implications this has in divorce proceedings.

Protect Your Rights: Speak with an Experienced Matrimonial Attorney

Understanding asset preservation and division during divorce proceedings is complex, particularly given this new and evolving legal landscape. Our experienced matrimonial attorneys at Mindin & Mindin, P.C. are experts at protecting your financial interests and can guide you through every step of the process.

📞 Don’t leave your financial future to chance. Contact us at 888-501-3292 or CLICK HERE to schedule a confidential consultation.

Can a Foreign Language Prenuptial Agreement Be Upheld in New York?

New York Court Rules Foreign Language Prenuptial Agreement Unenforceable Without Certified Translation

A recent decision by the New York Supreme Court underscores a critical legal requirement that couples should carefully consider when creating prenuptial or postnuptial agreements—especially those drafted or executed in languages other than English.

The Case: Z.J.V. v. A.A.V. (2025)

In the matrimonial case of Z.J.V. v. A.A.V., decided on March 25, 2025, Justice James L. Hyer denied requests from both parties to either enforce or invalidate a marital agreement, emphasizing a fundamental procedural misstep: the parties' failure to comply with the stringent translation requirements set forth in the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR §2101(b)).

This case involved a marital agreement executed shortly after the parties' marriage in Germany. The agreement was prepared in both German and English, explicitly stating that neither language was intended to have priority in the event of discrepancies. However, when presenting the agreement to the court for enforcement, neither party provided the required certified translation or translator's affidavit mandated by CPLR §2101(b).

Why the Court Could Not Enforce the Agreement

The court's ruling hinged on the requirements of CPLR §2101(b), which mandates:

• All documents filed with New York courts must be in English.

• Documents originally written in a foreign language must include a certified English translation.

• Each translation must be accompanied by an affidavit from the translator, affirming their qualifications and the accuracy of the translation.

Justice Hyer emphasized this rule clearly, stating:

"Here, this Court has been presented with the Purported Marital Agreement, which contains both text in the English language and in a non-English language. Notably, the agreement itself confirms in a portion of the English language text that contradictions in the English language portion and non-English language portion may exist, underscoring the need for an English language translation. Nonetheless, both parties failed to comply with CPLR §2101(b)... preventing this Court from being able to review the document."

As a result, the court concluded the agreement had no evidentiary value and explicitly refused to either validate or invalidate it, leaving the parties without the legal clarity they sought.

Important Lessons for Couples with Foreign-Language Prenups

This decision highlights several crucial points for couples in New York who are considering or have already executed a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement involving multiple languages:

1. Translation Requirements Are Mandatory:
   New York courts require strict compliance with translation rules. Even if your agreement is bilingual, without proper translation and certification, it will be unenforceable.

2. Clear Priority of Language Matters:
   Agreements containing multiple languages should clearly state which language controls if discrepancies arise. Ambiguity can lead to further complications in enforcement or interpretation.

3. Documentation and Procedure Are Critical:
   Procedural mistakes, such as not providing the necessary translation affidavits, can prevent courts from even reviewing your agreement, let alone enforcing it.

Protect Your Prenuptial Agreement—Ensure Compliance Today

This ruling underscores the importance of precise and careful drafting of prenuptial and postnuptial agreements. Proper execution, including compliance with all procedural and linguistic requirements, is essential to ensure your agreement is upheld by the court.

At Mindin & Mindin, P.C., our experienced New York matrimonial attorneys can assist you with every step of your prenuptial or postnuptial agreement, including:

• Drafting and negotiating comprehensive agreements

• Ensuring compliance with New York law, including CPLR §2101(b)

• Facilitating proper translations and certifications

• Reviewing existing agreements to ensure enforceability

Don’t let procedural oversights jeopardize your financial future. Contact our team today for a confidential consultation about your prenuptial or postnuptial agreement.

Protect your assets, ensure clarity, and avoid costly litigation.
Call Mindin & Mindin, P.C., at 888-501-3292 to schedule your consultation today.

Understanding Contempt for Failure to Pay Child Support in New York

Child support is a critical element in ensuring the well-being of children following a divorce or separation. When a parent fails to comply with court-ordered support obligations, they may face serious legal consequences, including contempt charges. This article explores the standards New York courts use to determine contempt for failure to pay child support and outlines essential steps parents should consider if faced with such allegations.

What is Contempt in Child Support Cases?

Contempt, in the context of child support, occurs when a parent willfully fails to comply with a court-ordered child support obligation. In New York, establishing contempt requires the petitioner (the parent owed child support) to demonstrate that the other parent (the respondent) has intentionally and unjustifiably violated the child support order.

Prima Facie Evidence of Willful Violation

In New York, the initial burden is on the petitioner to prove that the respondent has willfully violated the child support order. Courts consider the failure to pay as prima facie evidence (i.e., evidence sufficient at first glance) of willfulness. As demonstrated in recent cases such as Nestor v. Nestor (2025) and Kaloustian v. Tsvetkov (2025), merely showing that payments were not made as ordered shifts the burden of proof to the respondent to justify non-payment.

The Burden Shifts to the Respondent

Once the petitioner presents evidence of non-payment, the respondent must demonstrate through competent, credible evidence their financial inability to comply. This means the respondent must show detailed documentation proving either unemployment, a substantial change in financial circumstances, or diligent yet unsuccessful efforts to secure adequate employment.

Key Takeaways from Recent Case Law:

1. Nestor v. Nestor – 2025 NY Slip Op 01369 - The Family Court confirmed that the father willfully violated the child support order after he failed to present credible and competent evidence proving financial hardship or inability to meet his support obligations.

2. Kaloustian v. Tsvetkov – 2025 NY Slip Op 01367 - Similarly, the father’s failure to provide proof of reasonable efforts to obtain gainful employment or demonstrate financial hardship resulted in the court finding him in contempt.

What Constitutes Competent, Credible Evidence?

To effectively rebut allegations of contempt for non-payment, respondents should:

• Provide comprehensive financial records, including bank statements, income tax returns, pay stubs, and records of expenses.

• Demonstrate efforts to gain employment or improve financial circumstances, such as evidence of job applications, interviews attended, or efforts to secure training and educational opportunities.

• Clearly document any medical conditions or unforeseen life circumstances impacting their ability to comply with the support order.

Consequences of Being Found in Contempt

If a court finds a parent in contempt for willful non-payment of child support, potential penalties may include:

• Wage garnishment

• Suspension of driver’s or professional licenses

• Seizure of tax refunds

• Additional fines and legal fees

• In extreme cases, imprisonment

Seeking Legal Assistance

Given the complexities surrounding contempt proceedings and the serious consequences involved, parents facing allegations of contempt, or parents owed child support, should seek professional legal assistance. Experienced family law attorneys here at Mindin & Mindin, P.C. can help navigate the legal process, gather necessary evidence, and advocate effectively in court.

Experienced Representation for Your Child Support Matter

Our law firm has substantial experience representing parents on both sides of child support contempt actions in New York courts. If you’re involved in a contempt action related to child support obligations, don't hesitate to reach out for a consultation. We can help clarify your rights, responsibilities, and the best strategies to achieve a fair and just resolution for you and your family.

Contact our office today to schedule your consultation and ensure your rights are protected.

Cryptocurrency and Divorce in New York

Cryptocurrency has rapidly evolved from an obscure investment tool to a mainstream asset class, significantly complicating divorce proceedings in New York. In high-net-worth divorces, digital assets like Bitcoin, Ethereum are increasingly prominent, introducing new challenges for attorneys, forensic experts, and spouses alike. At the Law Offices of Mindin & Mindin, P.C., we specialize in addressing the complexities cryptocurrency brings to marital property division, ensuring transparency and fairness throughout the divorce process.

Why Cryptocurrency Matters in Divorce

Cryptocurrencies present unique challenges during divorce due to their decentralized, anonymous nature and their inherent volatility. Unlike traditional financial assets held at banks or brokerages, cryptocurrency is often stored in digital wallets accessed only through private keys. This makes it particularly difficult for a spouse to ascertain the true extent of marital assets or to prevent hidden funds from slipping through unnoticed.

Due to the volatility of digital currencies, the timing of valuation can drastically impact divorce settlements. Given the rapid fluctuations common to cryptocurrency markets, what might appear fair today can become inequitable in mere weeks or even days.

Detecting Hidden Cryptocurrency Assets

One major challenge divorcing spouses face is identifying undisclosed cryptocurrency holdings. Typical investigative methods, like bank statement reviews or subpoenas, might not immediately reveal cryptocurrency assets. Instead, detailed forensic accounting, blockchain analytics, and digital investigations have become crucial in uncovering hidden crypto assets.

Attorneys at Mindin & Mindin, along with experienced forensic accountants, utilize specialized software tools and investigative techniques to trace cryptocurrency transactions. Subpoenas to popular crypto exchanges like Coinbase, Kraken, and Gemini and thorough analysis of tax returns, bank statements, and personal financial statements can reveal traces of undisclosed crypto assets.

Valuation Challenges in Cryptocurrency Divorce Cases

Even after identifying cryptocurrency assets, valuing them accurately poses another significant challenge. The value of Bitcoin or Ethereum can shift dramatically in short periods, affecting equitable distribution. Courts in New York typically look at the valuation date—the official date used for asset valuation—to ensure fairness. Given the volatility of crypto markets, setting a strategic valuation date is essential.

Moreover, valuing crypto-assets might require expert testimony and analysis. Working closely with cryptocurrency experts who can provide credible valuations and forecasts ensures that your interests are protected in the distribution of marital property.

How Courts Handle Cryptocurrency in Divorce

New York courts treat cryptocurrency as marital property subject to equitable distribution. This means the digital assets acquired during the marriage must be fairly divided, although not necessarily equally. Courts consider multiple factors, including when the cryptocurrency was purchased, how it was acquired (such as mining, purchase through exchanges, or ICO investments), and contributions each spouse made during the marriage.

Notably, cryptocurrency acquired before marriage is typically considered separate property, provided sufficient proof exists. This makes documentation critical—spouses holding cryptocurrency should maintain clear records to establish its origin and acquisition date.

Protecting Your Interests

The complexity of cryptocurrency in divorce proceedings means you need specialized legal counsel familiar with both family law and digital assets. At Mindin & Mindin, P.C., our team is adept at navigating these intricate cases. We partner with leading forensic specialists to accurately trace, value, and secure your rightful share of crypto-assets.

Cryptocurrency in divorces is a relatively new legal terrain, but with a knowledgeable attorney and the right expert guidance, you can ensure a fair division of digital and traditional marital assets.

If you're dealing with a divorce involving cryptocurrency in New York, contact the experienced attorneys at Mindin & Mindin today. We understand the intricacies of crypto-assets and are dedicated to safeguarding your financial future.

The Best Interests of the Child: Why Courts Favor Stability and Co-Parenting in Custody Disputes

When determining child custody, courts in New York focus on one overarching principle: the best interests of the child. While this standard may seem straightforward, courts weigh multiple factors to ensure a custody arrangement promotes stability, emotional well-being, and continued parental involvement. A recent case, Acevedo v. Cassidy (2nd Dep’t 2025), underscores how judges evaluate key considerations, particularly a parent's ability to foster a relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent.

In Acevedo, the court awarded sole legal and physical custody to the father, finding that he was better positioned to provide stability and facilitate co-parenting. The mother challenged the decision, arguing that she was fit to retain custody. However, the court determined that several factors weighed in favor of the father.

One of the most critical aspects of any custody dispute is a parent's willingness to encourage a meaningful relationship between the child and the other parent. Courts are highly concerned when one parent appears to hinder or limit the other parent’s role in the child's life. In this case, the father demonstrated that he was more likely to share information about the child’s academic progress and general well-being, while the mother had failed to maintain consistency in her involvement.

Another significant factor was stability. The father had steady employment with a predictable schedule and lived close to the child's school, allowing for a consistent routine. In contrast, the mother had moved multiple times throughout the litigation, creating uncertainty regarding housing and school logistics. Courts tend to favor the parent who can provide the most stable home environment, as frequent relocations can disrupt a child’s emotional and educational development.

Additionally, the practical realities of each parent's living situation played a role in the court's decision. The mother's living arrangements involved a significant commute to the child’s school, whereas the father’s home provided a more convenient and stable setting. Courts recognize that long commutes can impact a child's daily routine, adding unnecessary stress and logistical challenges.

The case also highlights the importance of credibility in custody proceedings. Judges rely heavily on testimony, observing the sincerity, temperament, and overall character of both parents. When credibility issues arise—such as inconsistent statements or behavior that suggests an unwillingness to cooperate—courts may lean toward the parent who presents a stronger case for promoting the child's well-being.

Ultimately, Acevedo v. Cassidy reinforces the principle that custody decisions are based on the totality of circumstances. While no single factor determines the outcome, courts prioritize stability, a parent’s ability to facilitate co-parenting, and the overall living environment. Parents seeking custody should be prepared to demonstrate that they can provide a secure, nurturing, and consistent upbringing while ensuring that the child maintains a meaningful relationship with both parents.

If you are facing a custody dispute, it is crucial to understand how courts evaluate these cases and to present a compelling argument that aligns with the best interests standard. Consulting with an experienced family law attorney at Mindin & Mindin can help you navigate the legal process and build a strong case for custody. Contact us for a free consultation.