Recent Blog Posts in August 2009

It is important to hire a lawyer who stays up to date on the latest developments in the law. For further information about The Law Offices of Brian D. Perskin please click here.

The evolution of Same-Sex Marriage has been a complicated process. Same-Sex Marriage is now legal in some of New York's closest neighbors:  Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire as well as throughout Canada. This has lead to a situation where New York now recognizes Same-Sex marriages from other jurisdictions, albeit not allowing such marriages within the state. The expansion of Same-Sex marriage has brought with it all of the other issues that have always been a part of marriage. These issues involve the law in a number of practice areas, but mainly in matrimonial and familial practice. The article below describes the development of the law in this area, and gives some insight into how a practitioner should handle a client involved in a Same-Sex marriage.

New York Law Journal
As the Same-Sex Landscape Evolves
Prepare to serve this new group of clients.

By Arlene G. Dubin and Sheila Agnew

August 10, 2009

It is important to hire a lawyer who stays up to date on the latest developments in the law. For further information about The Law Offices of Brian D. Perskin please click here.

With such a limited number of Judges involved in Matrimonial law, Judge shopping is a serious concern. In a recent Suffolk County Court Decision, Justice Donald Blydenburg held that when it appeared a party to a matrimonial action switched attorneys only to cause the presiding judge to recuse himself, that the Judge did not have to recuse himself. Instead Judge Blydenburg ordered the party to hire a new attorney. This decision gives fair warning to those who would try to attempt similar types of Judge shopping. A New York Law Journal article below outlines the decision.

New York Law Journal
Court Calls Bid for New Lawyer 'Impermissible Judge Shopping'

By Vesselin Mitev

A state judge has rejected a Long Island man's attempt to hire a new attorney as "impermissible judge shopping" because the judge had previously reported the attorney to the grievance committee for an alleged disciplinary violation.

In a strongly worded ruling in response to the attorney's request for the judge's recusal in the matrimonial action, Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Donald R. Blydenburgh (See Profile) said, "The appearance of impermissible and inappropriate Judge shopping is present and the prejudice to the Plaintiff far outweighs Defendant's right to this specific counsel."

The judge ordered the defendant, Salvatore Romanello to hire a different attorney in Gaffney-Romanello v. Romanello, 21508/07.

The Suffolk County Supreme Court decision appears on page 39 of the print edition of today's Law Journal.

Erin Gaffney-Romanello had sued her husband for divorce in 2007 but by 2009 the parties appeared on the verge of settling.

Starting in January 2009, several scheduled conferences were postponed, as the parties told the court they had "reached a settlement" and requested additional time to finalize the deal, according to the decision.

In April 2009, Mr. Romanello fired Schlissel Ostrow Karabatos, the Garden City firm that had been representing him, and retained James F. Hagney, a partner in Reynolds, Caronia, Gianelli, Hagney & La Pinta in Hauppauge.

Mr. Hagney had previously appeared before Justice Blydenburgh in an unrelated matter, where a litigant alleged that Mr. Hagney had violated the attorney disciplinary rules. The decision did not elaborate on the alleged violation.

As a result, Justice Blydenburgh "was compelled to forward the allegation to the Grievance Committee" and had to recuse himself from cases handled by Mr. Hagney while the grievance is pending.

"This recusal has been limited to Mr. Hagney personally, and the Court inquires of Mr. Hagney on the record each time he appears if he intends to represent that particular client, as opposed to his partners," the judge wrote.

Representing Mr. Romanello in April, Mr. Hagney and one of his partners, Peter Caronia, appeared before Justice Blydenburgh and sought his recusal.

The judge declined, writing that doing so would "constitute, in this Court's opinion, impermissible Judge shopping by Defendant of a case that is ready for trial, but represented to have already been settled by the parties."

Ms. Gaffney-Romanello's attorney, Michael P. Vessa, objected to the recusal as well, arguing that he believed the matter was settled based on his prior dealings with Mr. Romanello's former counsel.

Acknowledging that the "right to counsel is absolute," the judge refused to step aside, and cited People v. Mackey, 572 NYS 2d 424, for the proposition that there is no right to specific counsel of one's choice.

In Mackey, the Appellate Division, Third Department, held that an attorney who had "longstanding difficulties" before the judge assigned to the case was properly disqualified and recusal of the judge was inappropriate, given the judge's "intimate involvement in the matter almost from its inception and [the new attorney's] status as a newcomer to the proceedings."

The judge also pointed to a federal ruling, In re FCC v. Nextwave Personal Communications Inc., 308 F3d 137, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that "we expect that lawyers will take pains to avoid appearing in any case in which their appearance may cause disqualification of a Judge assigned to the case."

To avoid disqualification, Justice Blydenburgh asked whether Mr. Hagney's partners or associates could handle the case, noting that Mr. Caronia is a "well respected matrimonial attorney" and pointing to two other lawyers, Catherine Miller and Dawn Hargraves, who are affiliated with the firm and handle matrimonial matters.

Mr. Hagney replied that only he would be working on the case, prompting his disqualification, the judge wrote.

"Clearly the Defendant, who had previous counsel...hired Mr. James Hagney solely to forum shop," Justice Blydenburgh held, in staying the case until September so Mr. Romanello can find a new attorney and get ready for trial, now set for Feb. 1, 2010.

In an interview, Mr. Vessa, of Vessa & Wilensky in Garden City, said the judge "did the right thing in view of the circumstances."

Mr. Hagney could not be reached for comment.

It is important to hire a lawyer who stays up to date on the latest developments in the law. For further information about The Law Offices of Brian D. Perskin please click here.

When legislators and Judges craft laws and orders they often seek to make rules that are permanent and unchanging. The problem is that life is predictably unpredictable. So many divorce cases that were ended when the economy was strong and people were making a large amount of money are no longer equitable in a world where salaries have dropped precipitously, but expenses have remained high. Many agreements that once made sense, are now overly burdensome for the payer. Due to changes in income the courts have become flooded with requests for modifications of agreements. The article below from the New York Law Journal outlines these problems and gives some insight onto how these requests for modifications are being handled by the courts.

Is our law equal to the challenge of today?

By Harriet Newman Cohen and Tim James

The past year has been a time of drastic economic decline, with millions losing jobs, real estate and stock values plunging, businesses performing far below accustomed levels, investment funds exposed as Ponzi schemes and the reduction or elimination of year-end bonuses in fields where such bonuses are typically the major part of total compensation. One result has been an increased number of applications for downward modification of support obligations.

A March 28, 2009, New York Times article captured the zeitgeist in describing the alarming number of new modification cases, both among the marginal earners and the wealthy, that are overwhelming the Family Court calendars.

This article explores the statutory and case law governing applications for downward modifications of established maintenance and child support. It also asks the question, "Is our law as promulgated and defined through case law equal to the challenge of these economically troubled times?"

The Governing Law

Domestic Relations Law (DRL) §236(B)(9)(b) provides that a court "may annul or modify any prior order or judgment as to maintenance or child support upon...a substantial change in circumstances." But a stronger showing is required to obtain a modification of child support or maintenance when the amounts to be paid have been set by the parties themselves, in an agreement, incorporated in, but not merged with, a judgment of divorce, or resolving a support proceeding.

In Boden v. Boden, the New York Court of Appeals established the preferred status of agreements between the parties on such matters, declaring:

Where, as here, the parties have included child support provisions in their separation agreement, the court should consider these provisions as [contracts] between the parties and the stipulated allocation of financial responsibility should not be freely disregarded....Absent a showing of an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances, the support provisions of the agreement should not be disturbed.

DRL 236(B)(9)(b) ratchets the standard up even higher with respect to modifications of maintenance established by agreement of the parties, specifying that "no modification of a prior order or judgment incorporating the terms of said agreement shall be made as to maintenance without a showing of extreme hardship on either party[.]" (Emphasis added.) Where the requisite showing is made, the court may modify the maintenance provision "for such period of time and under such circumstances as the court determines."

Five years after Boden, in Brescia v. Fitts, the Court of Appeals made it clear that the requirement of showing an "unreasonable and unanticipated change of circumstances" to obtain a modification of child support applies only "when the dispute is directed solely to readjusting the respective obligations of the parents to support their child," and not where "the child's right to receive adequate support is at issue."

In the latter case, a court is free to exercise its discretion in determining how much child support is required to ensure that the child has adequate support and order an upward modification consistent with that determination. It is applications for downward modifications, however, that are the focus of this article.

Malingerers Beware

In the decades since Brescia and Boden, the courts have established demanding standards for downward modifications of spousal and/or child support.

Regardless of whether relief is sought from the mandate of a court alone or from the provisions of an agreement between the parties, the courts, wary of malingerers, have looked to the payor's "capacity to generate income" (Michelle F.F. v. Edward J.F., Jr., O'Brien v. McCann) or, more broadly, his or her "ability to provide support" (Freedman v. Hornike).

Thus, the courts require that a payor seeking a downward modification based on the loss of a job or decreased income demonstrate that his unemployment or underemployment was not of his/her own doing, and that he/she has made diligent efforts to find appropriate alternative employment. Movants who fail to do so typically see their motions denied.

In the recently decided Krup v. Fehr, however, Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine gave the movant father a second bite of the apple. (See also Lonsdale v. McEwen, discussed below.) At issue was the $2,000 per month in child support that the father had agreed to pay for one child under a stipulation entered into when he was earning $170,000 a year. There was no dispute that his income had decreased to $90,000 at the time he made the downward modification motion.

The judge granted the father's application to the extent of ordering an evidentiary hearing based, among other things, on the father's failure "to offer any evidentiary support for his assertion that this decrease in earnings was not of his own making." The judge also directed that there be pre-hearing discovery. The decision provides a virtual primer on the case law governing downward modifications.

Although the court's focus is typically on changes in the payor's financial circumstances, changes in the financial circumstances of the payee may also be relevant on a motion for downward modification of maintenance or child support. For example, the wife's having gained employment was cited as a factor, or the factor, warranting a reduction in the maintenance amounts awarded in the judgment of divorce in Cross v. Cross, Bofford v. Bofford and Lipow v. Lipow.

The courts have emphasized repeatedly that, on any motion for downward modification of maintenance or child support based on the finances of the payor, a determination as to whether the requisite "change in circumstances" has been shown requires "comparing the payor's financial situation at the time of the application for a downward modification with that at the time of the order or judgment."

In making that comparison, the courts are concerned not just with the payor's income but with his or her overall financial circumstances (including assets and ability to maintain his/her own lifestyle in the face of alleged financial hardship) as indicia of the payor's ability to continue paying maintenance or child support at the same level.

'Unanticipated' Is a Must

Case law dating back to Boden establishes that where a party seeks modification of child support provisions contractually agreed to by the parties, the "change of circumstances" sufficient to satisfy the modification standard must have been "unanticipated" at the time of the agreement.

The courts have typically treated loss of employment as "unanticipated" without much discussion of the point. However, there have been cases in which the courts have held that the loss of employment was not an unanticipated change of circumstances.

For example, in Ellenbogen, the movant's business "had already experienced a precipitous decline in profitability and the loss of a major client at the time he entered into the stipulation," and in Commissioner of Social Services, the movant was on notice for eight years that he would lose his teaching license if he failed to obtain a master's degree; accordingly, his loss of his license for failing to obtain that degree was not unanticipated.

Showing, however, how fact-specific these cases are is Lonsdale v. McEwen. There, the separation agreement incorporated into the judgment of divorce specifically provided for a reduction in basic child support from $48,000 per year to $33,600 per year in the event that the father's income ($1.3 million per year at the time of the separation agreement in late 2001) should fall to $600,000 or less. The majority held that the father was entitled to a hearing on his motion, where "the parties to the agreement anticipated the loss of defendant's lucrative position but neither anticipated nor addressed either a prolonged period of unemployment or so huge a reduction in salary."

In late 2002, less than a year after the agreement was made, the father had lost his job. He was unemployed for most of 2003 and 2004. He had total income during those two years of only about $150,000, including the payments he received in 2004 from the job he got towards the end of that year which would pay him $200,000 a year prospectively.

The two dissenters, agreeing with the court below, would have denied the downward on the papers and without a hearing, as the father's loss of his job and the drastic reduction in income he suffered was far from "unanticipated" in that the parties had expressly contemplated that possibility and provided for it.

Successful Motions

If a downward modification movant has cleared all of the hurdles discussed above, the outcome of the motion will turn on whether the court views the change in circumstances as sufficiently "substantial," "unreasonable" or "extreme-hardship"-inducing (depending on which standard applies) to warrant a modification. Sometimes the court will grant but time-limit the relief.

This happened in A.R. v. N.R., where the court found that the husband had made a showing of "extreme hardship" in support of his motion for downward modification of both his maintenance and child support obligations (totaling $84,000 per year) under a separation agreement. The husband had suffered a "drastic reduction in income, from $300,000 per year at the time of the divorce to $66,000 per year (a 78 percent drop), through no fault of his own."

The court rejected the wife's contentions that the husband was living a "high lifestyle" and had "undisclosed cash," or more income than he claimed. But finding that the husband's prospects for the future were good, the court fashioned a creative decision, opting to grant a 13 1/2 month suspension of maintenance payments and a short (1/2 month) reduction of his child support obligation instead of a permanent modification.

Similarly, in Sheila C. v. Donald C., the court affirmed a one-year reduction in the movant's maintenance payments, holding that: "Respondent satisfied the extreme hardship standard. However, because he did not prove that his income will never recover, his request for a permanent reduction of his maintenance obligation was properly denied."

Applicant Beware

But if the downward circumstances are of the payor's own making, the court will not grant relief. So where an orthopedic surgeon decided to take an academic position in place of his former private practice, the court would not grant relief, finding that the reduction in his income was of his own doing.

But even apart from that issue, the court found the 31 percent decrease in the surgeon/former husband's income from $134,000 a year to $91,000 insufficient to establish the "extreme hardship" required to warrant a downward modification of the agreed-upon maintenance in light of, inter alia, his "comfortable, even luxurious lifestyle," his recent purchase of a house for $220,000 and his "not insubstantial" $91,000 income.

And job losses alone will not make an "involuntary, unreasonable change in financial circumstances" sufficient to warrant a downward modification, as the former husband learned in Cox v. Cox. He sought to be relieved of his $1,650-per-month child support obligation under a stipulation of settlement, pointing to the loss of his job with Verizon in late 2008, his new wife's loss of her job with Verizon at the same time and the fact that the $1,650 per month he was paying in child support now constituted 95 percent of his $1,741 per month in unemployment benefits. The court denied the relief, on the reasoning that:

• The payee wife, with whom the parties' daughter was residing in Florida, earned about $31,000 per year at her job.

• The husband had earned $318,000 in 2007 from his employment with Verizon, almost $200,000 more than his income of $123,000 for 2004, as stated in the stipulation of settlement the parties signed in December of that year.

• The husband and his new wife had earned a combined $414,000 from their employment with Verizon in 2007, and in that same year had received $498,000 for the sale of Verizon stock, bringing their gross income for the year to $912,000.

• The husband alone had been paid $476,000 by Verizon in 2007, leading the court to conclude that he had probably received a severance payment of approximately $150,000.

The Catch-22

Because of the requirement that a movant for downward modification based on the loss of a job demonstrate that he or she has made diligent efforts to find new employment, some delay in moving is probably necessary in order to make a facially sufficient motion.

But such a delay can be costly where child support is concerned, because, statutorily, child support continues to accrue until the date on which an ultimately successful motion for downward modification is made, and once that obligation has been incurred, the courts can provide no relief from it.

DRL 236(B)(9)(b) provides that "[N]o modification or annulment shall reduce or annul any arrears of child support which have accrued prior to the date of application to annul or modify any prior order or judgment as to child support" (emphasis added). As the Court of Appeals explained in Dox v. Tynan.

Child support arrears must be awarded in full, regardless of whether the defaulter has good cause for having failed to seek modification prior to their accumulation. "If a party obligated to pay child support wishes to avoid making payment, such as where his or her financial circumstances have deteriorated, that party must make an affirmative request for relief" (Scheinkman, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 14, Domestic Relations Law §244, at 752).

In May of this year, the Court of Appeals stressed the "strong public policy against restitution or recoupment of [child] support payments." Thus, every day of delay before moving for modification is another day to which any downward modification ultimately granted will not apply. And yet, to file before having established a record of diligent pursuit of new employment is to invite dismissal of the motion as facially defective.

So, Set Your Own Standards

Looking forward, divorcing parties (payors and payees) can achieve far greater flexibility with respect to the availability of modifications that take into account the ups and downs of life by agreeing, in a separation agreement or stipulation of settlement, to standards of their own choosing for modification.

In Vincent Z. v. Dominique K., the First Department reversed the Family Court and gave the father a downward modification based on the standards the parties had set for themselves, citing its earlier reasoning in Colyer v. Colyer that "parties to a separation agreement may contractually provide for a support modification on a lesser standard than legally required."

Law Is Malleable, Pragmatic

Wary of opening the floodgates too wide and thereby inviting constant litigation over the reasonableness of maintenance and child support obligations that have already been fixed, the Legislature and the courts set high standards that make successful applications for downward modifications the exception, rather than the rule.

But the law as defined over the years has within it all of the elements necessary to meet the economic crisis facing us today: hardship, unforeseeability, being in extremis. The challenge for our courts is, as always, to weed out the malingerers and to provide relief where appropriate. The law, as written and interpreted, is sufficiently malleable and pragmatic, not dogmatic, to mete out justice, even in these economically troubled times.

Harriet Newman Cohen is a member and Tim James an associate in Cohen Hennessey Bienstock & Rabin. Ms. Cohen is the co-author of 'The Divorce Book' (Avon Publishers, 1994).

It is important to hire a lawyer who stays up to date on the latest developments in the law. For further information about The Law Offices of Brian D. Perskin please click here.