Divorce and Reformation of Settlement Agreement

I have previously written about vacating settlement agreements on the grounds of mutual mistake.  Here is a case where the court actually reformed the parties’ settlement agreement on the grounds of mutual mistake.

In Banker v. Banker, 53 A.D.3d 1105 (3rd Dept. 2008),  the parties’ oral stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into their 2005 judgment of divorce, provided that the parties would subdivide a parcel of property located in Delaware County.  However, despite that provision, after the judgment of divorce was entered, the defendant refused to do so.  In response to a motion by plaintiff to enforce the stipulation, Supreme Court, in February 2006, ordered defendant to obtain subdivision approval from the Town.  The Planning Board denied defendant’s subsequent subdivision application after discovering that the property was encumbered by a restrictive covenant against further subdivision.  In March 2006, defendant moved to reargue and/or renew February 2006 order, and requested a hearing to determine equitable distribution.

Supreme Court reserved decision on all pending matters pertaining to the parties until an appraisal of the property was completed.  Because the parties could not agree on an appraiser, the court appointed one and directed the parties, once the appraisal was complete, to settle the matter in a private auction or buyout.  The appraiser completed the appraisal in June 2006.  By letter dated October 4, 2006, defendant requested the opportunity to offer further proof of value.  Plaintiff made a similar request and explained that the parties had not been able to settle the matter or agree on a private auction.

Plaintiff responded with a motion seeking that the parties’ interests in the property be declared in conformance with the terms set forth in the stipulation and the values established in the appraisal, as well as an order allowing her to buy out defendant’s share of the property.  Defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the appraisal should not be adopted without an opportunity by the parties to cross-examine the appraiser and submit other evidence of valuation.  Supreme Court ordered a hearing to permit the parties to cross-examine the appraiser, but made it clear that no other testimony or evidence of valuation would be permitted.

Following the hearing, at which Supreme Court again denied defendant’s request to submit further evidence, the court determined the interests of the parties in the property to be 83% for plaintiff and 17% for defendant.  The court, fixed the parties’ interests as indicated above, appointed a receiver, and ordered the   public sale of the property.  Defendant appealed.  The Appellate Division rejected defendant’s argument that Supreme Court exceeded its authority by reforming the parties’ stipulation of settlement.  Where, as here, a mutual mistake rendered a portion of the parties’ settlement agreement impossible or impracticable, “the relevant settlement provision was properly set aside”.  No dispute existed that the parties’ agreement to physically divide the property could not occur given the restrictive covenant; and even defendant was not attempting to have the parties’ stipulation enforced.  Thus, after giving the parties ample opportunity to reach a new agreement,  the trial court was correct to move forward by appointing an appraiser so that an equitable distribution of the property, in as close accordance as possible with the intent of the parties as expressed in their settlement, could be achieved.

The Appellate Division noted that to achieve reformation or recission of the stipulation of settlement, one of the parties should have commenced a plenary action, rather than proceeding by motion but, in the context of this matter, concluded the defect to be nonfatal.  However, the lower court erred in resolving this matter without a full hearing permitting the parties to offer proof of valuation.  The court is authorized to appoint an independent appraiser in a matrimonial action but, unless the parties have stipulated otherwise, the court must afford the parties the opportunity to review the appraisal, cross-examine the appraiser and offer additional evidence on valuation.  Although the record contained evidence that the parties consented to Supreme Court’s appointment of the appraiser, it did not suggest that the parties agreed to be bound by the resulting appraisal.

This is an example of a situation where the mutual mistake allowed the court to reform the parties’ settlement agreement.  While those circumstances tend to be limited, the lawyers in Banker recognized that since the property could not be subdivided, it had to be sold or one of the parties would buy out the other party’s interest.  The question of valuation was secondary to the remedy chosen by the court as a result of reformation of the agreement.  At the same time, it is rather surprising that neither divorce attorney was aware of the covenant, since both parties, presumably, had access to the real property records and the property’s abstract of title.

Limitations on Child Support Arrears and Child Support Standards Act

One question that I am often asked with respect to child support arrears is whether there is a limit on the amount of child support arrears that can be accrued.  My usual response is that there is only one limitation in the Child Support Standards Act with respect to the limits on child support arrears and it exists solely in situations where the payor’s income is below the amount set by the poverty income guidelines for the single person, as reported by the federal Department of Health and Human Services.

Specifically, where the payor’s annual income is below the poverty income guidelines, then in accordance with the Family Court Act §413(1)(g), then payor’s child support arrears are limited to $500.00.  For 2009, the federal poverty guideline for a single person was set at $10,830.00.  This provision can be very helpful to family law lawyers and their clients since this provision allows for retroactive limitation on child support arrears, but it is limited to those situation where the party who owes child support has an extremely low level of income.

There are some limitations even in situations where the payor’s income was below the poverty guideline amount.  The party charged with paying child support couldn’t have voluntarily reduced his/her income, and must demonstrate inability to earn a higher amount (i.e., cannot have income imputed on the basis of ability to pay or other factors).  On practical level, the most likely situation where this provision becomes applicable is typically where a party becomes disabled and does not seek downward modification of the child support obligation until after child support arrears have accrued.

What is also interesting about the Family Court Act §413(1)(g), is that it directly contradicts Family Court Act §451, which prohibits the court from reducing or annulling arrears accrued prior to the filing of a modification petition unless the party shows good cause for failure to make the application sooner.  The courts were able to harmonize both sections by deciding that if the payor’s income is below the poverty level guideline, then by operation of section 413(1)(g) the arrears had never accrued.  Ronald F. v. Kathy Jo O., 25 Misc 3d 1229 (Fam.Ct. Erie Co. 2009)

Update on Progress of New York’s No-Fault Divorce Legislation

I have previously written about the lack of no-fault divorce in New York and the highly uncertain future of the bills creating no-fault divorce in New York.  Earlier this month, the New York State Senate Committee on the Judiciary advanced legislation (S.3890/A.9753), sponsored by Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson and Assemblyman Jonathan Bing, that would allow a judgment of divorce to be granted to either a husband or a wife without assigning fault to either party.  The legislation now moves to the full Senate for consideration.

The legislation would allow for divorce when a marriage is irretrievably broken for a period of at least six months, provided that one party has so stated under oath.  A judgment of divorce can then only be granted if the following issues have been resolved: the equitable distribution of marital property, the payment or waiver of spousal support, the payment of child support, the payment of counsel and expert fees and expenses, and infant custody and visitation rights.  The bill is supported by the New York State Bar Association.

However, the fate of the legislation is still highly uncertain. The bill is opposed by New York State chapter of NOW, as well as other groups.

Child Support and Public Assistance

While I have repeatedly written about various issues involving New York’s Child Support Standards Act, here, here, here, and here, one issue that was not previously discussed and bears mentioning, is the interplay between the Child Support Standards Act and public assistance received by the parent receiving child support.  In Gregory v. Gregory, 68 A.D.3d 770 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept), the Appellate Division, Second Department decided the amount of child support payable by the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent was receiving public assistance.

In Gregory, the parents physically separated and the mother retained custody of the children.  Eventually, the parents agreed that the father would have primary custody of their two sons, and the mother would have primary custody of their daughter.  While there was no written agreement or court order concerning child support, the father claimed that he and the mother agreed that each parent would support the child or children in her or his custody, respectively.

Thereafter, the mother applied for and was awarded public assistance.  The mother received public assistance from August 1, 2004, until May 31, 2007, totaling $26,830.67, of which $13,415.44 was attributable to the support of the parties’ daughter, who was the child in mother’s custody.  In May 2007 the mother commenced a proceeding seeking child support for the parties’ daughter.  The Department of Social Services (DSS) intervened in the proceeding, seeking payment of child support from the father, which sum included the money it had paid to the mother on behalf of the parties’ daughter.

After a hearing, the Support Magistrate calculated the father’s support obligation for his daughter for the period to be $26,006.26, and directed him to pay that amount to the DSS.  The Appellate Division held that Family Court’s directive that the father pay the DSS the sum of $26,006.26 was proper.  Since the support obligation of a parent of a child receiving public assistance is measured by the child’s needs and the parent’s means, not by the amount of public assistance paid on behalf of the child, the Family Court acted properly in declining to limit the amount required to be paid by the father to the DSS to the child’s share of the public assistance grant.  Contrary to the father’s contention, he was not entitled to offset alleged unpaid child support from the mother against the amount he owed to the DSS. During the relevant time period, there was no support obligation imposed upon the mother for the children who were in the custody of the father.

The lesson of this case is that whenever the DSS is involved in assisting the custodial parent, this assistance is likely to come at a high price to the non-custodial parent.  What is significant in the opinion is that the typical child assistance payment amounts to a few hundred dollars.  On the other hand, the amount of child support owed by the non-custodial parent and calculated on the basis of that parent’s income, can be several times higher.  The non-custodial parent will not receive the difference between the two figures since it would be retained by the DSS.  In similar situations, depending on the incomes involved, a family law lawyer may recommend to the non-custodial parent to pay the custodial parent the total amount of public assistance privately since it may cost a lot less.

Divorce, Separation and Selection of Tax Status for Filing

I have previously discussed some of the tax issues related to divorce, maintenance and dependency exemptions.  As the tax season approaches, here is some additional information that may be of assistance.

In a typical divorce, unless the parties have been legally separated prior to December 31, they are still able file a joint return.   By filing a joint return, both spouses will be jointly and separately liable for any errors, omissions or deficiencies on the tax return.   If the parties are going through divorce, the issues related to division of any tax refunds may also become complicated.

If you are legally separated from your spouse, you are able to file as a head of household if you provided more than half the cost of keeping up a home for a child, dependent parent, or other qualifying relative for more than half the year.  According to the IRS, to claim head of household, you must either be unmarried or considered unmarried on the last day of the year.  In addition, the Abandoned Spouse rule may be applicable.   In order to qualify under the rule, if you and your spouse lived apart for the last six months of the year, you would be considered unmarried for the purpose of this filing status under the Abandoned Spouse rule.  If you meet the other two requirements for this status, you would be eligible to file as Head of Household.  The other two requirements are as follows:  1) paying more than half of the cost of keeping up a home as of the last day of the tax year;  2) a dependent child or other relative lived with you for more than half the year or you have a dependent parent (dependent parents are not required to live with you).

A party is required to file as single if he or she was unmarried as of December 31, or if legally separated as of the end of the year and does not qualify for another filing status.

There are other tax advantages and disadvantages that depend on the filing status elected by the party.  Please note that the above discussion is not tax advice, and these issues should be discussed with your tax professional.

Divorce, Monetary Obligations and Statute of Limitations

It is is not uncommon for a party to obtain a right to receive a sum of money in the judgment of divorce.  That right usually comes in situations where there are assets that are subject to equitable distribution.  It is also not uncommon for the parties to make their own agreements following the judgment of divorce as to how such sums of money will be paid.  One issue that would raise a concern for me would be a situation where the payment is extended over a long period of time.  It is a concern because a statute of limitations may come into play and, possibly, bar recovery.

In Woronoff v. Woronoff, 2010 N.Y. Slip. Op. 01479 (2nd Dept. 2010), the Appellate Division held that where a monetary award in the judgment of divorce is not reduced to a monetary judgment, such award is subject to a six year statute of limitations.  In Woronoff, the parties were divorced by judgment dated December 21, 1988, which provided, inter alia, that the plaintiff would pay the defendant the sum of $87,500 for her share of his businesses.  In 1990, the parties entered into an agreement which modified this portion of the judgment so as to, among other things, set forth a different payment schedule for the distributive award.  This agreement was not reduced to a court order.  The defendant never entered her distributive award as a money judgment nor sought to enforce collection thereof until 2007, when she obtained a clerk’s judgment against the plaintiff.  Thereafter, however, the plaintiff successfully moved to vacate the clerk’s judgment.

The plaintiff then commenced an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful procurement of the clerk’s judgment including the counsel fees he expended in moving to vacate the clerk’s judgment.  The defendant’s first counterclaim asserted that the plaintiff had failed pay her the full amount of her distributive award for her share of his business, and alleged damages resulting therefrom in excess of $150,000.

The Appellate Division held that contrary to the defendant’s contention, the distributive award made to her in the divorce judgment for her share of the plaintiff’s business was not a “money judgment” subject to a 20-year statute of limitations.  Instead, her claim to enforce this award was governed by the six-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 213(1) and (2).  Accordingly, since the defendant did not seek to enforce her distributive award nor reduce it to a money judgment until well beyond six years after the divorce judgment was entered, and even well beyond six years after the parties entered into their modification agreement, the Supreme Court properly dismissed this counterclaim as time-barred.

The lesson of the above case for divorce lawyers is that in the event there is a monetary award in the judgment of divorce, it is a good idea to reduce it to a monetary judgment.  Alternatively, if the parties agree to extend the payment of the amount due beyond six years, such agreement should be reduced to writing and should include a provision specifically waiting statute of limitations.

Order of Protection, Divorce and Surveillance

As a divorce attorney, I am periodically asked if hiring a private investigator to follow a spouse is acceptable and whether, if found out, it would result in any negative repercussions. I usually respond that surveillance is acceptable; however, there may be some evidentiary issues with the results that may make them inadmissible during the trial. A recent decision shed some light on these issues.

In Anonymous v. Anonymous, 2010 N.Y. Slip. Op. 20024 (Sup. Ct. Orange Co. 2010), the husband has brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the wife’s petition which alleged the husband violated an order of protection pursuant to a settlement stipulation in Family Court.  The order of protection, entered without any finding of fault against the husband, directed him to refrain from committing a family offense or criminal offense against the wife and to stay at least 1000 feet away from the residence and place of employment of the wife except for court-ordered child visitation or to attend church services on Sundays.  The wife’s violation petition alleged that the husband retained a private investigator who recorded on DVD the wife entering a motel and having an affair with a priest assigned to the Church, where the wife was employed.  The wife alleged that the husband furnished the DVD to her superiors at the Church resulting in the wife being forced to resign.  The wife contended that there was no legitimate purpose in the husband having her followed by a private detective and delivering the DVD to Church officials and that doing so was intended by the husband to cause her to lose her employment and cause her personal humiliation and suffering.  The wife claimed that such conduct constitutes a violation of the order of protection.

In opposition to the husband’s motion to dismiss the petition, the wife’s attorney alleges the husband hired the private detective after he filed his answer and counterclaims in the divorce action.  The wife’s attorney contended the husband was not legally bound to turn over the DVD to Church officials.  The wife’s attorney argued that the husband violated the order of protection by acting through an agent, the private detective he hired, to follow and record the wife’s activities, and then turning over the DVD to the church causing the wife to lose her employment.

The court held that it was not improper for the husband to retain the services of a private investigator since the hiring of a professional licensed private investigator in a matrimonial action to gather evidence is for a proper and legitimate purpose.  The husband had the right to gather evidence up to the date of trial in defense of the matrimonial action and in support of his own counterclaims.  Under the circumstances, the hiring of the private investigator, in and of itself, was not an unlawful intrusion upon the rights of the wife secured by the order or protection.

With respect to the question of whether delivering the DVD to the Church officials, which was not necessary for the husband to defend or prosecute the divorce action, raised a triable issue of fact that the husband in having the wife followed and recorded by a private investigator intended to inflict emotional and financial harm upon the wife which might constitute a violation of the order of protection.  Although harassment in the second degree often involves conduct which places a person in fear of their physical safety, the language of the statute does not limit itself to only physical threats. If the husband had the wife followed and recorded by a private investigator for the purpose of gathering embarrassing material to deliver to her employer with the intention to cause her to lose her employment such might qualify as conduct which alarms or seriously annoys another person, and serves no legitimate purpose, constituting harassment in the second degree.

The husband in his motion papers has prima facie demonstrated his entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the petition by evidence showing he did not retain the private investigator for an improper or illegitimate purpose such as harassment or stalking under the Penal Law or intend to make improper use of the private investigator’s work product DVD.  Upon the failure of the wife to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact that the husband committed a crime or family offense against her or otherwise violated the order of protection, the court granted the motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition.

So, the lesson of this case can be summarized as follows.  One, surveillance in divorce cases is a legitimate means of gathering evidence.  Two, surveillance alone will not amount to a violation of an order of protection.  Three, if results of surveillance are delivered to a third party, with possible negative consequences to the party under surveillance, such act may violate an order of protection, if there was no legitimate reason for such disclosure.  If you are seeking to involve a private investigator to follow and observe your spouse or significant other, I would urge you to consult with a divorce attorney before doing so.

Child Support, Emancipation and Child’s Economic Independence

One of the most common questions I hear as a part of my family law practice is a question of when a child become emancipated for child support purposes.  My usual response is that emancipation of minors depends on a variety of circumstances.  The Child Support Standards Act’s provisions dealing with emancipation hold that the child becomes emancipated upon reaching the age of 21, joining military, or getting married. In addition, the child may become constructively emancipated by willingly abandons the parent and withdrawing from parental supervision and control. In addition, the child may become emancipated, assuming the child is of employable age, by becoming economically independent of the parents. If emancipation is sought for a child who is of employable age, and is working, I usually tell my client that the child has to work between 35 and 40 hours per week and generate sufficient income to be economically independent of the parents.  In some situations, however, even a full-time job may not be enough.

A recent case, Thomas B. v. Lydia D., 2009 N.Y. Slip. Op. 06789 (1st Dept. 2009), is an excellent illustration of these concepts.  In Thomas B., the Appellate Division held that two parents may not, by written agreement, terminate the child support obligation because of the child’s full-time employment, without a simultaneous showing of the economic independence of the child.

Pursuant to a stipulation of settlement entered into as part of the parties’ judgment of divorce, father was obligated to pay annual child support until the parties’ child reached the age of 21 or was otherwise “emancipated.”  The stipulation defined emancipation as “the Child’s engaging in full-time employment; full-time employment during a scheduled school recess or vacation period shall not, however, be deemed an emancipation event.”  The father brought a motion seeking to declare the child emancipated and argued that under the terms of the stipulation of settlement, the child became emancipated by reason of his full-time employment at a music store from July through December 2005.  The mother opposed the motion, arguing that during the time in question, the child was living in a halfway house as part of his treatment for substance abuse.  His employment at the music store was one of the conditions of that treatment.  She also argued that the child was not economically independent, as he received financial support from her in addition to her payment of 100% of his unreimbursed medical expenses.

The court stated that mere full time employment was not enough, and emancipation would require economic independence from the child’s parents which is not established by merely working a standard, full-time work week.  Thus, even where a child is working but still relies on a parent for significant economic support such as paying for utilities, food, car insurance, medical insurance and the like, the child cannot be considered economically independent, and thus is not emancipated. This is true even where the child is residing with neither of the parties, so long as the child is still dependent on one of the parties for a significant portion of his or her support.  Moreover, the parties cannot contract away the duty of child support.  The Appellate Division found insufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that the child was economically independent of his parents as a result of his working 35 hours per week while living in a halfway house. The child’s employment was one of the requirements of participation in the halfway house substance abuse program.  In Thomas B., it was clear, that although he was working 35 hours per week during the period of time in question, the child was not economically independent of his parents, and thus was not emancipated during that period of time.

One lesson of Thomas B. is that the lawyer dealing with this type of situation must present sufficient evidence to establish the child’s work hours and income, as well as his/her needs and expenses.  It is also critical to present testimony as to whether the other parent is meeting the child’s other financial needs, and whether such financial assistance is necessary or is merely voluntary.  If you believe that your child became emancipated due to employment, I would recommend consulting with a family law attorney.

Determining Validity of Separation Agreements

I have previously written about separation agreements and their validity, here, here and here.  Periodically, I see separation agreements that are extremely one-sided or I am asked to draft a separation agreement that is very one-sided.  In those situations a divorce lawyer is usually asked if the agreement can be set aside.  My usual response is that the court’s determination whether to set aside the agreement depends on a variety of factors.

The legal standard for setting aside separation agreements states that a separation agreement in a divorce proceeding may be vacated if it is manifestly unfair to one party because of the other’s overreaching or where its terms are unconscionable, or there exists fraud, collusion, mistake, or accident.  Separation agreements may be set aside as unconscionable if their terms evidence a bargain so inequitable that no reasonable and competent person would have consented to it.  Moreover, evidence that one attorney ostensibly represented both parties to a settlement agreement raises an inference of overreaching on the part of the party who is the prime beneficiary of the assistance of the attorney. Such an inference is, rebuttable, if it appears that the separation agreement is fair and equitable or that both parties freely agreed to it with a thorough understanding of its terms.

In a recent case of Pippis v. Pippis, 2010 N.Y. Slip. Op. 00492 (2nd Dept. 2010), the Appellate Division, Second Department vacated the separation agreement holding that plaintiff was guilty of overreaching with respect to the parties’ separation agreement.  The court found that the defendant was not represented by counsel at any point during the relevant time period.  According to the plaintiff, his attorney drafted the stipulation of settlement, and only one attorney was present at the signing.  Under these circumstances, and where the terms of the stipulation “evidence a bargain so inequitable” in favor of the plaintiff “that no reasonable and competent person” would have consented to the defendant’s end of the bargain, an inference of overreaching on the part of the husband was raised.  Since the plaintiff failed to rebut the inference, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly determined that the stipulation was the product of his overreaching, and granted the defendant’s motion to set it aside.  The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly rejected the plaintiff’s ratification argument, since the defendant “received virtually no benefits from the agreement and thus cannot be said to have ratified it”.

While occasionally I am asked to prepare a separation agreement in a situation where the opposing party is unrepresented, I advise my client that it is in his/her best interests that the other party is represented and that the agreement is not entirely one-sided.  As a divorce lawyer, I have to advise my client that any agreement that is extremely one-sided may be vacated by the court in any pending or subsequent divorce action.  If the agreement is reviewed by counsel and conveys some benefits to the other party, the likelihood of it being overturned by the court is greatly diminished.

Grounds for Divorce, Truthfulness, Paternity and Consequences

I have previously written how New York’s fault system of divorce which requires the parties to satisfy grounds requirements tends to result in unneeded matrimonial litigation and, in some case, leave the parties married despite the fact that the marriage died many years ago.  A recent decision brought a new twist on an all too common situation.

In Andrew T. v Yana T., 2009 N.Y. Slip. Op. 29530 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2009), the parties were married in in 2006.  In September of 2007, the plaintiff husband brought a divorce action on the grounds of constructive abandonment.  On March 19, 2008, defendant-wife gave birth to a baby boy.  This event not only predated the divorce judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage, but was prior to defendant having signed her affidavit and the parties having entered their separation and property settlement agreement. According to plaintiff, he was never aware that defendant was pregnant and he only learned about the child after the parties were already divorced. There was no father listed on child’s birth certificate.

Once plaintiff learned of the existence of the child, he petitioned the court for an order directing paternity testing.  Defendant opposed the motion contending that the child, who was not born until March 19, 2008, cannot possibly be plaintiff’s.  Defendant further argued that if plaintiff is taking the position that the child is plaintiff’s child, this means that the sworn statements in his verified complaint concerning the lack of sexual relations with defendant must be untrue.  As a result, defendant cross-moved for an order finding that plaintiff has violated Penal Law section 210.10, perjury in the second degree.

Defendant’s argument was predicated on the fact that with respect to plaintiff’s cause of action for constructive abandonment, plaintiff alleged in his verified complaint “that commencing on or about August 1, 2006, and continuing for a period of more than one (1) year immediately prior to commencement of this action, the defendant refused to have sexual relations with the plaintiff despite plaintiff’s repeated requests to resume such relations.”  The complaint stated that there were no children of the marriage.  Defendant had neither interposed an answer to the complaint nor in any other way sought to contest the divorce.  Instead she provided plaintiff with an affidavit in which she admitted service of the summons and complaint “based upon the following grounds: constructive abandonment DRL §170(2).”

Following the execution of defendant’s affidavit and the parties’ agreement, plaintiff promptly placed the case on the uncontested matrimonial calendar for submission. This meant that neither party had to appear in court to give testimony because the application for the divorce judgment was to be decided on the papers alone.  On July 29, 2008, a judge signed the judgment dissolving the marriage between the parties by reason of the constructive abandonment of plaintiff by defendant. The judgment stated that there are no known children of the marriage and none are expected.

While defendant’s argument was creative, the trial court judge did not accept it, pointing out that the defendant has not presented any evidence to exclude plaintiff as defendant did not present any evidnce other than relying on plaintiff’s verified complaint.

In addition, the court stated that the presumption of legitimacy, the child’s best interests and plaintiff”s request for paternity testing were interrelated.  Plaintiff was already presumed to be child’s father by virtue of having been married to the child’s mother when the child was born.  The child’s best interests lie in having his parentage confirmed, his father’s name listed on his birth certificate, and his rights and status attendant to the father-son relationship fully established.  A positive paternity test would provide the means by which any doubt as to whether plaintiff is the child’s father.

With respect to defendant’s cross-motion seeking a finding that the plaintiff committed perjury, a felony, the court stated the following:

Suffice it to say that if the District Attorney was intent on prosecuting all the people who, within the context of uncontested divorce proceedings, falsely claim not to have had sexual relations with their spouses, there would be little time left for pursuing other crimes. As with a revelation that a husband or wife has committed the crime of adultery by having had sex outside the marriage, there are instances of wrongdoing that do not demand the attention of the People of the State of New York in order to keep our society safe and secure.  This is one of them.

The court further addressed New York’s lack of no-fault divorce in rather strong terms:

If New York was like every other state, even those that some might think of as legally and socially backward, and had a true no-fault ground for divorce, such as “irreconcilable differences” ( Mississippi) or “incompatibility” (Oklahoma), the situation here, as difficult as it already is involving a battle over a child, could have been that less complicated. This is because plaintiff would never have had to make the representations that he did about his sex life with defendant just so a New York court could free the parties from a marriage that neither side wished to continue.

Unfortunately, our state, which prides itself on being so forward-thinking in so many ways, is positively regressive as concerns the institution of marriage. When it comes to forming the marriage bond, we do not allow loving, consenting adults who happen to be of the same sex to enjoy the same rights as others. When it comes to dissolving the marriage bond, we do not allow no-longer-loving, consenting adults to obtain a divorce for reasons that are real rather than fabricated so as to meet some archaic legal requirement. It is clearly time for the Empire State, as it is known, to reject a view of marriage that is more reflective of the time of the Empire of Queen Victoria than it is of the second decade of the 21st Century and at long last adopt the reforms that bar associations and citizens groups of all kinds have been demanding for years. Until that happens, the integrity of our legal system here in New York will continue to be needlessly compromised.

defendant contends that the child, who was not born until March 19, 2008, cannot possibly be his. Defendant further submits that if plaintiff is taking the position that Ethan is his child, this means that the sworn statements in his verified complaint concerning the lack of sexual relations must be untrue. As a result, defendant cross-moves for an order finding that plaintiff has violated Penal Law section 210.10, perjury in the second degree.
FACTS
The parties were married on July 1, 2006, in New York City. Fifteen months later, on or about September 7, 2007, plaintiff commenced an action for divorce based on two of the statutory grounds. One was the constructive abandonment of plaintiff by defendant for a period of one year proceeding commencement of the action (DRL §170[2])[FN2]; the other was the cruel and inhuman treatment of plaintiff by defendant (DRL §170[1]). Plaintiff ultimately relied solely on the first cause of action, constructive abandonment, in seeking the divorce.
With respect to his cause of action for constructive abandonment, plaintiff alleged in his verified complaint “that commencing on or about August 1, 2006, and continuing for a period of more than one (1) year immediately prior to commencement of this action, the defendant refused to have sexual relations with the plaintiff despite plaintiff’s repeated requests to resume such relations.” The complaint states that there are no children of the marriage.
Defendant neither interposed an answer to the complaint nor in any other way sought to contest the divorce. Instead she provided plaintiff with an affidavit in which she admitted service of the summons and complaint “based upon the following grounds: constructive abandonment DRL §170(2).” She further stated that she was consenting to the matter being placed immediately on the uncontested divorce calendar. On the same day defendant signed the affidavit, June 2, 2008, the parties, both of whom were represented by counsel, executed a [*3]separation and property settlement agreement. The agreement states that “the parties agree that the Wife shall consent to an uncontested divorce judgment being entered against her under this Index Number based upon the grounds of constructive abandonment set forth in the first cause of action of the Verified Complaint.” As with defendant’s affidavit, no mention is made of children, either born or expected.
Following the execution of defendant’s affidavit and the parties’ agreement, plaintiff promptly placed the case on the uncontested matrimonial calendar for submission. This meant that neither party had to appear in court to give testimony because the application for the divorce judgment was to be decided on the papers alone. On July 29, 2008, a judge of this court signed the judgment dissolving the marriage between the parties by reason of the constructive abandonment of plaintiff by defendant. The judgment states that there are no known children of the marriage and none are expected.
On March 19, 2008, defendant gave birth to a baby boy, Ethan. This event not only predated the divorce judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage, but was prior to defendant having signed her affidavit and the parties having entered their separation and property settlement agreement. According to plaintiff, he was never aware that defendant was pregnant and he only learned about the child after the parties were already divorced. There is no father listed on Ethan’s birth certificate.

As far divorce litigation is concerned, the above represents an extreme example of a problem that divorce lawyers often face.  If New York were to adopt some version of no-fault divorce, a great deal of litigation could be eliminated.