Rothman v Rothman
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Family law—divorce and ancillary relief; spousal maintenance duration and amount; equitable distribution; litigation credits; counsel fees.
After submissions in lieu of testimony, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, awarded the plaintiff maintenance for 5 years (2 years at $12,000/month, then 3 years at $11,000/month), declined to award her a share of office furniture/equipment/scrap metal or any interest in the defendant’s new business, denied a credit for one half of the present-day value of marital stocks and various other claimed credits (including certain medical expenses), and awarded $125,000 in counsel fees. It later denied her motion to set aside portions of that order.
Only the duration (and resulting structure) of maintenance was modified—an additional 7 years at $8,000/month were added. All other rulings were affirmed.
Given a long-term marriage, the parties’ predivorce lifestyle, the plaintiff’s age (57), nearly 20-year absence from the workforce, and documented physical and mental health issues stemming in part from domestic violence, it was unrealistic to expect self-sufficiency after 5 years. Under Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(6)(e)(1), (f)(2) [lists factors for determining the amount and duration of post-divorce maintenance, including domestic violence, age, health, earning capacity, and length of marriage], extended maintenance was warranted. Insufficient proof supported the claimed equitable distribution credits and medical reimbursements, and the counsel-fee award was within the court’s discretion.
Background
The parties married in 1992 and have two emancipated children. The plaintiff commenced this divorce action in 2016. A scheduled March 2020 trial was adjourned due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The parties stipulated to relevant maintenance factors and, in July 2020, waived a trial, submitting papers in lieu of testimony on equitable distribution, maintenance, and competing credits. By order dated April 24, 2021, the Supreme Court resolved those issues, and by order entered November 17, 2021, it denied the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(b) [permits a court after a nonjury trial to set aside or modify its decision and order new findings or a new trial] to set aside portions of the April 2021 order. A judgment of divorce was entered on January 20, 2022, embodying those determinations, and the plaintiff appealed.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court (Nassau County, Court Attorney Referee Marie F. McCormack) awarded spousal maintenance for five years (2 years at $12,000/month, then 3 years at $11,000/month); denied the plaintiff 50% of the marital business’s office furniture, equipment, and scrap metal; awarded the defendant his interest in a new business without any distributive award to the plaintiff; denied a credit for one half of the present-day value of marital stocks; denied credits for certain medical expenses (including out-of-network charges where the defendant paid premiums) and for sums allegedly taken from the marital business; and awarded the plaintiff $125,000 in counsel fees. The court denied the plaintiff’s CPLR 4404(b) motion to set aside these portions.
Appellate Division Reversal
Modified only as to maintenance: the defendant must pay (1) $12,000/month for 2 years; (2) $11,000/month for the next 3 years; and (3) $8,000/month for an additional 7 years. The panel held a 5-year total was inadequate given the long marriage, age, prolonged workforce absence, health issues, and domestic violence. All other determinations—including denial of stock and debt/medical credits, distribution of business assets, and the $125,000 counsel-fee award—were affirmed due to insufficient evidence of wasteful dissipation or entitlement and the trial court’s broad discretion. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms the Appellate Division’s broad authority to adjust maintenance where a long-term marriage, age, health, domestic violence, and limited earning capacity weigh against a short rehabilitative period under Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(6). It underscores that equitable distribution credits require competent proof and that courts will not second-guess marital economic decisions absent wasteful dissipation. It also confirms trial-court discretion on counsel fees and medical expense allocations (e.g., out-of-network charges where premiums were paid).
In long-term marriages with older, out-of-workforce, and health-impacted spouses—especially where domestic violence is proven—maintenance may be extended well beyond five years, while claims for credits and business asset shares will fail without concrete evidentiary support.