When the legal historians write about the year 2024, one has to wonder what will be said. Only time will tell.
What we do know is that the dynamic between divorce litigants and matrimonial judges has been disrupted in ways that are cause for concern. More specifically, in 2024, we have seen various decisions of interest wherein divorce litigants flouted court orders with impunity.
With that in mind, we turn to the recent decision of Justice Edmund M. Dane in Y.R. v. A.O.R. 2024 NY Slip Op 51487(U) (Sup. Ct., Nassau County).
The Y.R. divorce saga involved a “tortured litigation history.” The parties married in 2000, had no unemancipated children, and an action for divorce was filed in 2011.
The parties’ June 2012 stipulation of settlement resolving the divorce action required the wife to either list and sell a residence in Great Neck, New York by March 1, 2017, or purchase the husband’s interest in the residence for $75,000. In short, she did neither.
The husband moved for a warrant of eviction, and the court granted the motion to the extent of setting a date certain by which the wife is to vacate the Great Neck residence, failing which a warrant of eviction “shall be issued” directing her removal by a sheriff.
The decision recounts an October 2022 order of the court in which it was noted that the wife wrote to her counsel “…find a different way of fighting in this case. I will not give up the apartment!!! He did not earn it!!! And I don’t care what the Big JUDGE says…”
As the court explains “The defendant’s obstinance during these proceedings is consistent with her email to her counsel and is second only to her outright disdain for the order(s) of this court, her scorn towards the plaintiff, and her derision of the sanctity of the parties’ bargained-for-stipulation of settlement.”
Amid a series of post-judgment motions and a plenary action to vitiate the stipulation of settlement, in October 2023 the wife was found to be in contempt of court and sentenced to prison for 28 days, all of which were served as the wife’s contempt was not purged “by tendering a set of keys to the plaintiff so as to enable the plaintiff and his broker/sales person to photograph the subject premises [] and otherwise cooperate with the plaintiff regarding the sale of the subject premises.”
The husband’s arguments are no mystery: his wife had five years from the date of the stipulation of settlement to pay him for his interest in the Great Neck residence or sell it, “and she did neither.” While the husband was appointed as receiver to effectuate the sale in October 2022, after being released from her 28-day prison sentence, the wife “still refuse[d] to comply with, in effect, either paying him the $75,000.00 due to him and the order appointing him as receiver.”
Consider the following passages from the court’s decision which highlight the extent to which the wife did not comply with orders of the court:
The Defendant has disregarded multiple Order(s) of the Court with a degree of impunity that can only be characterized as obvious indifference. If the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity.
The Defendant’s conduct has left this Court with no other alternative than [to] direct her to vacate the Great Neck Residence by a date certain [] or face removal by the Sheriff pursuant to a warrant of eviction. The Defendant has given this Court no other choice. Critically, the Defendant has not even offered so much as a payment plan or any other good faith payment to the Plaintiff to demonstrate that she has any intention to or interest in complying with the underlying Stipulation.
The Defendant’s failure to pay anything in seven (7) years, her refusal to list the Great Neck Residence for sale, and her refusal to cooperate with the Plaintiff as Receiver and the Plaintiff's broker leads the Court to the inescapable conclusion that her ejectment from the Great Neck Residence is the only remedy which will compel her compliance. Her conduct has effectively rendered the Stipulation and the multiple Order(s) meaningless. That result is indefensible.
I am not sure what the solution to this problem is, that being how to more expeditiously address flagrant violations of bargained-for agreements and thereby avoid burdening our courts with a series of post-judgment motions that seek compliance with those agreements.
The disposition of the Great Neck residence in Y.R. was to have happened by March 1, 2017. Y.R. was decided in October 2024—more than seven years later, and more than 12 years since the June 2012 stipulation of settlement.
Parties going through a divorce and their lawyers are and should be expected to show respect and deference to our matrimonial judges, and their orders. Indeed, that is not a concept that should be unique to divorce practice.
As we approach 2025, let us all do our part to make sure that respect for the Court in the practice of divorce law—both from lawyers and their clients—rules the day. If we can’t make that a priority, then I fear history will not look kindly on our system of justice.
"New Year’s Mandate: Respect Our Matrimonial Judges," by Alan R. Feigenbaum, was published in the New York Law Journal on December 13, 2024.
Reprinted with permission from the December 13, 2024, edition of the New York Law Journal © 2024 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited.
