How New York Judges Rule After a Full Divorce Trial: Business Valuation, IP, Support, and Counsel Fees in D.P. v. S.P.
A detailed New York divorce trial decision that shows how judges actually think
New York divorce trials are rare because most cases settle. When one does go the distance, the written decision can be a goldmine because it captures how a judge filters messy facts, evaluates credibility, deals with litigation misconduct, applies the statutes, and then crafts orders that can actually be enforced. That is exactly what makes D.P. v. S.P., a New York Supreme Court decision out of Westchester County, so useful even for Manhattan and the other boroughs. The court issued a post-trial decision on January 28, 2026.
This was not a short hearing. The court notes it conducted a twenty-six-day trial, then issued detailed findings and rulings on the financial issues that remained after partial stipulations. The point for NYC clients is simple: the statute is statewide, the analytic method is basically universal, and this opinion shows the real-world “judicial math” that drives outcomes when settlement fails.
The facts in plain English
The parties married on March 2, 2013 and the divorce action was commenced on October 21, 2022. They have two children. The case went through extended litigation, including stipulations resolving discrete items along the way, including grounds and custody-related stipulations that the court states will be incorporated (not merged) into the judgment.
What made the financial side especially hard is the business and technology overlay. The decision describes T.S.G. as a staffing company and Q.S. as a software platform owned by that company. A major theme throughout is that the software and related intellectual property became a litigation battleground, including disputes over access to source code and the ability to value the asset.
What issues the court had to decide after trial
The court’s framing matters because it shows the order in which many judges process a trial record. The decision states it is addressing equitable distribution, custody, child support, maintenance, counsel fees, and other ancillary relief. Even if some of those topics are resolved by stipulation, the judge’s sequencing is typical: identify what is still in dispute, decide what testimony is credible, decide what property can be valued and how, then decide support, then decide whether to shift counsel fees based on relative resources and conduct.
The judge’s credibility filter comes first, and it drives everything
A major reason trial decisions feel harsh is that judges are not required to “split the difference” when they think one side is not telling the truth. Here, the court explicitly sets out credibility principles and notes it can accept some testimony and reject other testimony, and that intentional falsehood on a material point can allow the court to reject broader testimony under the “falsus in uno” concept.
For NYC litigants, this is the takeaway you ignore at your peril: credibility is not a vibe, it is a lever. Once the judge decides who is reliable, everything downstream follows, including valuation disputes, income findings, and whether counsel fees get shifted.
Equitable distribution of the business: valuation, percentage, and how the money actually gets paid
The court determined the value of the Defendant’s interest in T.S.G. at $5,992,000 and awarded the Plaintiff a distributive award of $2,396,800. The court also ties the award to the reality of the parties’ roles during the marriage, describing the Plaintiff as the primary caregiver for special-needs children while the Defendant worked extremely long hours. That kind of finding is not window dressing. It is the factual predicate that makes a large distributive award feel justified to a trial judge.
A distributive award only matters if it can be collected. This decision is practical about payment mechanics. The court structured the $2,396,800 award to be paid in 96 monthly installments with interest at 9 percent on the principal-plus-interest balance, and it expressly addresses the court’s discretion to order installment payments.
In NYC cases involving privately held businesses, installment structures are common because forcing an immediate lump sum often means liquidation, business collapse, or never-ending enforcement litigation. This decision shows a judge trying to prevent that spiral while still protecting the non-titled spouse’s share.
Using escrow to fund the first payment
The court also dealt with escrowed funds from the sale of the marital residence, ordering equal division of an escrow account totaling $400,584.54, then directing that the Defendant’s half be paid over to the Plaintiff as the first installment of the T.S.G. distributive award. This is another example of judicial enforcement thinking: grab the clean money first, then fight about the rest.
The IP and source code problem: when a spouse cannot or will not produce what’s needed to value the asset
This decision is unusually valuable for tech-adjacent divorces, which are increasingly common for White Plains and NYC families alike. Early in the case, the court describes the core dispute: the Plaintiff’s claim that Q.S. was built by using her separate property intellectual property and that the Defendant resisted providing the source code, while the Defendant asserted trade secret concerns and resisted disclosure.
At the remedy stage, the court states it was unable to determine the ownership of the Q.S. software source code, which prevented a traditional distributive award tied to a defined ownership interest. When judges cannot value or divide an asset cleanly because the proof is missing or the asset is intentionally obscured, they often pivot to an alternative remedy that forces transparency and ongoing sharing.
That is exactly what happened here. The court awarded the Plaintiff 40 percent of any economic benefit derived from the intellectual property, required quarterly accountings and corresponding payments, and declined to appoint a receiver. The court even specifies a tight compliance mechanism: accountings and payments by certified mail on set quarterly dates.
For NYC clients in startups, software companies, or businesses built around proprietary systems, this is the headline: if the court believes the titled spouse is shielding the ball, the remedy can shift from one-time valuation to a long-term revenue participation order with mandatory reporting. That is a judicial workaround to information asymmetry.
Maintenance and child support: the numbers, the cap, and why the judge deviated upward
The court awarded spousal support of $8,000 per month for 34.5 months, and it expressly states the presumptive guideline amount was insufficient and that an upward modification was required based on the statutory factors. This is another common trial dynamic in high-income cases: the formula is a starting point, not the finish line, and judges will deviate where they think the statutory factors demand it.
Child support with a $500,000 cap and high-income pro rata shares
On child support, the decision is explicit about how the court handled combined parental income far above the statutory cap by applying the cap and then applying the statutory percentage for two children. The court’s math yields a basic child support obligation of $9,687.50 per month during the period when spousal support is being paid, and $10,208.33 per month afterward.
The pro rata split is also stark and it should be. During maintenance, the decision uses a roughly 7 percent Plaintiff share and 93 percent Defendant share for add-ons, then after maintenance it shifts to roughly 2 percent and 98 percent. Those numbers are the reality of high-income cases when one party earns orders of magnitude more than the other, and they drive everything from childcare to unreimbursed medical costs.
The decision also locks in the mechanics for monthly payments and for reimbursement of add-ons with proof of payment and a defined timeline.
Litigation conduct matters: automatic orders, contempt, and why it impacts money
New York’s automatic orders are not “suggestions.” The court references a prior civil contempt finding for violating the automatic orders by unilaterally changing the Plaintiff’s health insurance. The decision also points to an additional automatic order violation where 5 percent equity ownership rights in Q.S. were transferred to a third party without consent or court order.
When a judge sees this kind of conduct, it affects credibility, it affects equitable distribution discretion, and it is the kind of background that often supports counsel fee shifting. Even when a court is not explicitly “punishing” misconduct, it is factoring in the practical consequences and the need to deter further gamesmanship.
Counsel fees: the court shifted $500,000, and the rationale is familiar
The court set the attorney fee award to the Plaintiff’s counsel at $500,000. In high-asset trials, that kind of fee award is not unusual, where the court views one spouse as the monied spouse and where litigation conduct increased the cost of the case. This is another point NYC clients often misunderstand: counsel fees are not just about who “won.” They are about resource imbalance and how the case was litigated.
What this decision teaches NYC divorce clients about how judges decide after trial
Judges build decisions from a few repeating building blocks, and this opinion shows them in the open.
The first block is credibility. The court’s explicit discussion of how it assesses testimony is not academic; it is a warning that inconsistent or evasive testimony can collapse an entire litigation theory.
The second block is proof and access to information. Where the asset is technical, like software source code, and where access is restricted, the court may abandon traditional valuation and impose an ongoing economic participation remedy with forced reporting.
The third block is enforceability. Installment payments, escrow offsets, explicit payment instructions, and hard compliance deadlines show a judge designing an order intended to reduce post-judgment warfare.
The fourth block is child-centered realism. Support numbers in high-income cases look extreme until you read the pro rata math and see how quickly add-ons, medical needs, and caregiving burdens drive actual costs.
FAQ for New York City divorce clients reading this decision
Does a Westchester Supreme Court decision matter for NYC divorces?
Yes. The governing statutes and appellate case law are statewide, and trial judges in NYC use the same factor-driven framework. The geography changes the courthouse, not the analysis. This case is a window into how the analysis looks when written down after a full trial.
If my spouse owns a business, can the court force a sale to pay me out?
Sometimes, but judges often prefer structured buyouts to avoid destroying the income-producing asset. This decision shows a long installment schedule with statutory interest rather than a forced liquidation.
What happens if the business value depends on source code or trade secrets?
If the court believes the titled spouse is blocking valuation by withholding critical information, the remedy can shift to revenue participation plus mandatory reporting, like the 40 percent economic benefit and quarterly accounting order here.
Why are the child support pro rata shares so lopsided?
Because the math follows income. When one parent earns almost all the income, the CSSA pro rata allocation for add-ons can realistically become 93 percent, then 98 percent after maintenance ends, as the court calculated here.
Bottom line for NYC clients
If you are heading toward trial in a New York divorce involving a business, tech assets, or high income, you should read decisions like this with one question in mind: “What story will the judge believe, and can we prove it?” This opinion shows that judges reward transparency, punish gamesmanship indirectly through credibility and remedies, and they structure orders around collection reality, not slogans.
If you are in a highly contested divorce, stop hoping the other side will suddenly get reasonable. That is not a plan, and it is usually the fastest way to lose ground.
High-conflict cases are won by preparation, control of the record, and enforceable court orders. You need a lawyer who knows how to build a clean narrative for the judge, force disclosure, pin down income and assets, and shut down gamesmanship before it becomes “the new normal.” If your case involves a business, hidden money, custody warfare, or relentless motion practice, you cannot afford a soft approach.
Contact the Law Offices of Mindin & Mindin, P.C. to schedule a strategy call. We will identify the pressure points, map the fastest path to leverage, and put you in position to either settle on your terms or try the case and win. Call 888-501-3292 or submit a confidential inquiry through our form below.