Frequently Asked
Questions.

No. New York allows no-fault divorce: one spouse swears the marriage has been irretrievably broken for at least six months, and the other spouse cannot block the case by disagreeing. The older fault grounds — cruelty, abandonment, adultery, and the rest — still exist on the books, but in modern practice they rarely change the financial outcome and usually inflame the litigation. We almost always file no-fault and reserve fault allegations for the issues where they actually move the needle, principally custody. The grounds are the easy part; what takes time is dividing the assets, settling the parenting plan, and resolving support.

Uncontested cases without children can wrap in a few months. Contested cases with custody, business valuation, or serious financial discovery typically run a year and a half to three years, sometimes longer; in Westchester, the average is around a year. Timing is driven by the scope of disputed discovery, whether a custody forensic is ordered (those alone take three to six months), and the pace of the assigned court. We move efficiently — early discovery, prompt conferences, four-way meetings before positions harden — but we will not trade away a client’s long-term position to shave months off a calendar. A rushed divorce is almost always a regretted divorce.

An uncontested divorce is one where both spouses already agree, in writing, on every issue: custody, parenting time, support, maintenance, and how the assets and debts are divided. A contested divorce is everything else — partial disagreement or full-blown dispute, requiring discovery, motions, experts, and (if it doesn’t settle) trial. The label matters less than the reality: most cases that begin contested finish on a negotiated settlement, because the work of litigation is usually what produces the information and leverage needed to reach a fair deal. That outcome is the norm, not an exception.

You can file in New York if you or your spouse meet one of the state’s residency requirements, most commonly two years of continuous residency or one year combined with a New York connection to the marriage. Within New York, the case is typically filed in the county where one spouse lives — but where there is a real choice, venue matters. Different counties run their matrimonial parts differently, with different judges, different settlement cultures, and different timelines. We evaluate venue carefully at the outset of any case where both spouses have plausible county connections; the wrong courthouse can cost months and, sometimes, the kind of judge you need on your facts.

The automatic orders are a set of injunctions that take effect by operation of law the moment a divorce is filed and served. They prohibit either spouse from selling, transferring, or hiding marital assets; changing or canceling insurance covering the other spouse or the children; removing the other spouse from existing beneficiary designations; or running up unreasonable debts on marital credit. They are powerful and frequently violated, which is why we routinely subpoena bank, brokerage, and credit card records to verify compliance — post-commencement transfers can often be unwound or charged against the offending spouse’s share. If you are worried your spouse may move money before filing, filing sooner is sometimes the more protective choice.

Rarely without legal advice first. Moving out does not, by itself, forfeit your interest in the home — but it can set a temporary parenting baseline the court will preserve, complicate your access to documents and personal property, and create arguments your spouse can run with later. In a case with children, the parent who stays in the home with the children usually becomes the temporary primary caretaker by default, simply because that is the status quo the court protects. If there are real safety concerns, that calculus changes immediately — safety first, and we can address custody and exclusive use of the residence through the appropriate motion or order of protection. In high-conflict but non-violent households, the better answer is often to remain under the same roof, with a careful protocol, until a structured separation is negotiated.

The preliminary conference is the first substantive appearance in a contested case, usually within about 45 days of the filing of the request for judicial intervention. Both spouses and their counsel appear before the assigned justice, and the court enters a stipulation and order setting the schedule for everything to come: financial disclosure, depositions, experts, motion deadlines, and a target trial-readiness date. The judge may also refer parts of the case to mediation, appoint an attorney for the children, and address immediate temporary issues — support, parenting time, exclusive use of the residence. The schedule that comes out of the preliminary conference will govern the next year or more, and the experts appointed there often shape the eventual outcome. We treat it as a strategic event, not a formality.

The Statement of Net Worth is a sworn financial disclosure each spouse must file, detailing income from every source, monthly expenses, all assets, and all liabilities. It is the foundation for every financial issue in the case — support, maintenance, distribution, and counsel fees — and because it is signed under oath, a material misstatement or omission can produce contempt, adverse credibility findings, sanctions, or fee awards. In high-net-worth cases, omissions surface during discovery — an undisclosed account, an unreported bonus, a business not listed — and the consequences can be severe. We invest heavily on both sides of the ledger: making sure our client’s Statement of Net Worth is complete and defensible, and scrutinizing the other spouse’s line by line against tax returns and bank records. Discrepancies between what is sworn and what the documents show are often where the most consequential issues originate.

Pendente lite — "while the litigation is pending" — refers to temporary orders entered during the case but before final judgment: temporary maintenance, child support, interim counsel fees, custody and parenting time, and exclusive use of the residence. These orders matter because matrimonial cases are slow, and a spouse who controls the income or household finances can otherwise pressure the other into a bad settlement just by waiting. For a non-monied client, an early motion for temporary support and interim fees is often the most important first move in the case. For a monied client, the better play is usually to engage early and constructively — often through a voluntary support stipulation — to avoid an overbroad temporary order built on an unrealistic budget. The temporary order sets the tone for everything that follows; both sides ignore it at their peril.

Discovery is the formal process for getting information from your spouse and from third parties — banks, employers, accountants. It typically includes the exchange of Statements of Net Worth with full supporting documentation, written demands, subpoenas, and depositions under oath. In high-asset cases it extends into the books and records of closely held businesses and frequently requires a neutral valuator or forensic accountant; in contested custody cases it can reach medical, mental health, educational, and employment records where they are genuinely an issue. Contested matrimonial cases are most often won or lost in discovery, and we have built proprietary internal systems for tracking productions, identifying gaps, and pressing on deficiencies — a level of organization that is not standard in this practice and that consistently makes a difference.

Roughly 95% of matrimonial cases settle before trial. That number is correct but misleading: most cases settle precisely because both sides know the case can be tried — and because the work done in preparation for trial is what produces the leverage and information that drive a settlement. Opposing counsel know which firms will try a case and which will not, and they negotiate accordingly. We try cases, including custody trials to verdict and significant financial trials — one of which produced a Westchester ruling valuing a business at more than seven times the court-appointed neutral’s recommended figure. The judgment about when to settle and when to try is the work that experienced matrimonial counsel actually provides.

Legal custody is the authority to make major decisions for the children — education, non-emergency medical care, mental health treatment, religious upbringing. Physical or residential custody is where the children primarily live. Legal custody can be joint, sole, or — increasingly common — a hybrid in which decision-making is split by subject area, with one parent having final say on schools, the other on medical, with consultation required in each direction. Physical custody can be primary to one parent with parenting time to the other, or shared on something approaching a 50/50 schedule. What matters is the substance of the order, not the label; "joint custody" can describe arrangements that look almost nothing alike in practice.

There is no fixed checklist, only the best-interests standard developed over decades. The court weighs each parent’s ability to provide a stable home, the historical caretaking role, mental and physical health, the willingness to foster the child’s relationship with the other parent, the child’s wishes (calibrated to age and maturity), any history of domestic violence, any substance abuse or untreated mental illness, work schedules and availability, and the child’s attachments and adjustments to home and school. There is no presumption favoring either parent — mothers and fathers stand equally before the court. Contested custody cases are won on facts, not theory: actual conduct, presented through documents, third-party witnesses, and the parents themselves. The work is in marshaling that evidence with discipline and putting it before the right judge.

A forensic evaluation is a court-ordered psychological assessment of the parents, the children, and the family dynamic, performed by a neutral mental health professional. The evaluator interviews each parent multiple times, observes parent-child interaction, administers testing where appropriate, speaks with collaterals (pediatricians, teachers, therapists), and produces a written report with recommendations. Whether one will be ordered depends on the issues — where allegations include substance abuse, mental illness, alienation, coercive control, or significantly poor judgment, a forensic is the norm. Forensic reports carry enormous weight, and courts frequently adopt them, which makes preparation for the process — and effective cross-examination of the evaluator at trial — among the most important work in any contested custody case. We have substantial experience with the leading evaluators in this region; we know what makes a strong presentation, and how to expose methodological weakness when the evaluation is wrong.

In any seriously contested custody case, yes. The Attorney for the Child represents the child as a client — not the court, not either parent — and is a true advocate, with an ethical obligation to advance the child’s expressed wishes where the child is of sufficient age and capacity. They meet privately with the child, learn their views, and present them to the court. Their influence is often substantial — sometimes more than a forensic evaluator’s — and the selection of the right Attorney for the Child can be consequential. The relationship between counsel and the Attorney for the Child should be cooperative and professional even when positions diverge.

Not unilaterally. Once a case is filed, neither parent can move the children outside the current geographic area without consent or court permission, and even after judgment, relocation requires a separate proceeding. The court weighs each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the strength of the children’s relationship with each parent, the impact on the non-custodial parent’s role, and the genuine economic, emotional, and educational benefit of the move. The relocating parent carries the burden of proof, and these cases almost always require a trial. If you are considering a move, do not relocate first and ask permission later — self-help relocation is one of the surest ways to lose a custody case.

A diagnosis alone does not disqualify a parent — many people with managed conditions or in stable recovery are excellent parents. What the court cares about is impact: compliance with treatment, insight into the condition, history of stable functioning, and observed parenting behavior. Substance abuse cases turn on documentation — treatment history, drug testing protocols, missed parenting time — and courts have a wide toolkit, from supervised visitation to hair-follicle testing to mandatory treatment. Coercive control — the pattern of financial control, isolation, surveillance, and intimidation — has gained substantial recognition in New York courts over the past decade, but proving it requires patient, methodical documentation and, often, expert testimony. We have obtained sole custody in cases involving these issues, for mothers and fathers alike, and we know how to present them to a court.

There is no fixed age. A court may speak with a child privately, on the record, in what is called a Lincoln hearing — the weight given to the child’s wishes depends on age and maturity. Younger children’s preferences are noted but rarely drive the outcome; by ten or eleven, a child’s expressed views begin to receive meaningful weight; by the mid-teens, a child’s preference is typically very influential. Courts and the Attorney for the Child are alert to coached or pressured statements, and there is no faster way to undermine your case than to manipulate your child’s views. The right channels for a child’s voice are private interviews with the Attorney for the Child and the forensic, and, where appropriate, the Lincoln hearing — not letters to the judge or testimony at trial.

Yes, but only on proof of a substantial change in circumstances and that modification serves the children’s best interests. The change must be material — a parent’s relocation, a serious health or substance issue, sustained interference with the other parent, or the child’s own evolving developmental needs. Courts are appropriately reluctant to disrupt established arrangements without a real reason; stability is itself a value the law protects. That said, modifications do happen — children grow, circumstances shift, and an arrangement that fit a six-year-old often does not fit a fourteen-year-old. We handle both sides: bringing modifications when an order has outlived its usefulness, and defending against unwarranted ones.

The first step is documentation: keep a factual, contemporaneous record of every missed exchange, late pickup, or unilateral deviation. For isolated, low-grade violations, a calm written reminder often resolves things. For a pattern of serious or willful violations, the remedy is a motion to enforce, which can produce compensatory parenting time, a modification of the order, contempt findings (including monetary sanctions or, in extreme cases, incarceration), and counsel fee awards. Custody itself can be modified where one parent has engaged in sustained, willful interference with the other parent’s relationship with the child. What we strongly caution against is self-help — withholding the children, withholding support to "even the score," or calling police in non-emergencies — which almost always damages the complaining parent’s position.

No. New York is an equitable distribution state — marital property is divided fairly, but not necessarily equally. In many marriages, fair and 50/50 look similar; in others, the result deviates meaningfully when one spouse has dissipated assets, behaved in ways that affect the equities, or where pre-marital contributions argue for a different split. We have litigated equitable distribution to substantially disproportionate outcomes in both directions — significant awards above 50/50 where the equities favored our client, and significant awards below 50/50 where the other spouse’s conduct warranted it. The discretion built into the equitable distribution standard is the lever, and it is most effectively used by counsel who understands both the law and the facts thoroughly.

Marital property is, generally, everything either spouse acquired during the marriage — income, retirement contributions, businesses built, real estate purchased, and appreciation on marital assets — regardless of whose name it is in. Separate property is what a spouse owned before the marriage, what they received during the marriage by gift from a third party or by inheritance, personal injury compensation, and anything designated separate by a valid pre- or postnuptial agreement. Two issues complicate the analysis: appreciation on separate property may become marital when it is attributable to either spouse’s active efforts, and separate property that is commingled with marital funds can lose its separate character in whole or in part. Tracing — proving by documentary evidence what came from where — is essential, and the difference in outcome between a successful and unsuccessful tracing can be very large. We routinely engage forensic accountants to reconstruct the marital and separate portions of complex accounts, businesses, and real estate.

Businesses and professional practices are among the most complex assets in matrimonial litigation. Valuation typically requires a neutral business valuator — usually a credentialed accountant — who examines financial statements, tax returns, client base, capital structure, and industry comparables, and applies an income approach, a market approach, an asset approach, or some combination. For closely held businesses, the valuator must also assess goodwill — enterprise versus personal — which receive different treatment under New York law, and discounts for lack of control or marketability may apply. We have litigated business valuation at the highest level — including a Westchester case where we successfully discredited the court-appointed neutral and the court valued the business at more than seven times the expert’s recommended figure, with a hybrid asset classification affirmed on appeal, and the largest counsel fee award we are aware of in Westchester County, $1.2 million, also affirmed on appeal. Business valuation in a serious case is contested, expert-driven, and very far from a paint-by-numbers exercise.

Each category has its own mechanics. Defined-contribution accounts like a 401(k) are usually divided by a separate court order — a QDRO — directing the plan administrator to transfer the agreed share to a rollover account, generally tax-free at the moment of transfer. Defined-benefit pensions are more involved: the non-employee spouse receives a fraction of each future payment, calculated by a formula that reflects the share earned during the marriage. Restricted stock units, options, and other equity compensation require a more nuanced analysis, with allocation between marital and separate portions driven by when the grant was made and what services it compensates. Deferred compensation, carried interest, and similar instruments require careful drafting in any settlement to capture the actual economic value, not the face value — getting this wrong can cost the non-employee spouse very significant money over time.

New York uses a guideline formula to calculate presumptive maintenance up to a statutory income cap that adjusts every two years. The formula differs depending on whether child support is also being paid, and the result is capped at the amount that would bring the recipient’s income to 40% of combined income. For income above the cap, the court considers a list of factors — length of marriage, earning capacity, standard of living, contributions to the other’s career, and others — and may award additional maintenance. Duration is set on an advisory schedule pegged to the length of the marriage; in long marriages with significant disparity, lifetime maintenance is not uncommon. In shorter marriages or where the recipient has strong earning capacity, durational awards are typical.

Combined parental income is multiplied by a fixed percentage based on the number of children — 17% for one, 25% for two, 29% for three, 31% for four — and each parent pays their pro rata share. The calculation is presumptive up to a statutory income cap that adjusts every two years. Above the cap, the court has discretion to apply the percentages, use a different methodology, or weigh a list of statutory factors; the application of the formula above the cap is one of the most contested issues in high-income cases, and the difference between a straight-percentage award and a tailored above-cap analysis can be substantial. The court also allocates pro rata shares of unreimbursed medical expenses, work-related child care, and educational expenses. We approach the above-cap analysis with the same rigor we bring to equitable distribution; the long-term value of getting it right is significant.

Self-employment and income hiding are recurring features of contested matrimonial cases, and the standard tools — Statements of Net Worth, tax returns, bank statements — are necessary but rarely sufficient on their own. We engage forensic accountants to reconstruct true income from the business’s actual books: general ledger, vendor and customer records, deposit slips, expense reports, and corporate returns. The issues that emerge are familiar — personal expenses paid through the business, retained earnings suppressing reported income, unreported cash in cash-heavy businesses, timing manipulation around the date of commencement. New York courts have a robust toolkit: adverse inferences, imputation of income based on lifestyle, and in serious cases, preclusion orders barring the spouse from offering certain testimony at trial — we obtained one where a husband could not account for $14–$15 million in missing marital funds, which substantially shaped the eventual settlement. Income hiding rarely succeeds against rigorous, accountant-supported litigation; it usually succeeds only when the other side is unwilling or unequipped to do the work.

Yes, in many circumstances. New York law authorizes the court to direct the more monied spouse to pay the counsel and expert fees of the other, and creates a presumption in favor of fee awards to the less monied spouse so that both parties have meaningful access to representation. Interim fee awards — paid during the case — are common in cases with significant income disparity and prevent the more monied spouse from using the cost of litigation as a weapon. Fee awards can also flow in either direction where one spouse has engaged in obstructionist or bad-faith conduct. The largest counsel fee award we are aware of in Westchester County, $1.2 million, was issued to one of our clients and affirmed on appeal — not typical, but a reflection of how seriously courts treat both access to counsel and litigation misconduct.

A QDRO — Qualified Domestic Relations Order — is a separate court order that directs the administrator of a retirement plan to transfer a defined share to the non-employee spouse. Federal law requires it for any division of a qualified retirement plan. Without one, even a perfectly clear agreement that the account will be divided is not enforceable against the plan administrator. QDROs are technical documents, and different plans (especially pensions) involve drafting choices — survivor benefits, separate-interest versus shared-interest, early-retirement options — that carry very real economic consequences. We routinely engage a specialized QDRO drafter and review every QDRO carefully; the wrong drafting choice can cost the non-employee spouse tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars over time.

There are essentially three resolutions. One spouse buys out the other and retains the home (which requires refinancing the mortgage to remove the departing spouse and a cash or equitable-distribution offset for the buyout); the residence is sold and the net proceeds are divided; or disposition is deferred until a defined milestone — often the youngest child finishing high school — under a written arrangement. Each option has trade-offs: buyouts preserve continuity for children but require financing; sales fully liquidate the asset but disrupt the living arrangement; deferred sales fit custody-heavy cases but create ongoing co-ownership issues that have to be carefully drafted. Tax treatment matters — the capital-gain exclusion on a principal residence is significant, and the timing of the sale relative to the divorce can affect it. On a long-held appreciated home, the difference can be material, and we coordinate closely with each client’s tax advisor.

This is an area where our firm has set the leading recent precedent in New York. Courts have traditionally been reluctant to issue blanket orders prohibiting spouses from posting on social media during a divorce, because such orders are vulnerable as prior restraints on protected speech. In 2023, we obtained a court order banning a spouse from social media posts that denigrated our client and discussed the divorce, on the ground that the specific posts caused identifiable harm to the children and interfered with our client’s ability to earn the income needed to support them. The Appellate Division affirmed, and the decision has since been analyzed by bar associations and cited by counsel seeking similar relief. The point is not that every social media restraint is enforceable; the point is that with the right factual predicate — concrete harm to children, interference with livelihood, harassment beyond mere criticism — targeted restraints can be obtained, and the work is in building the record early.

Discreetly, and with a plan. High-profile cases require a different operating model — coordinated handling of court filings, scheduling, third-party subpoenas, and any public-facing communications, often working alongside the client’s existing communications advisors. In practice that can include filing sensitive papers under seal where the court will permit, structuring discovery to limit leak-prone subpoenas, scheduling appearances to limit predictability, and carefully reviewing the client’s own communications and social media activity during the case. For some clients the goal is to keep the divorce entirely out of the press, which is often achievable; for others the case is already public, and the goal becomes responsible engagement — accurate, measured, on counsel’s advice. We have decades of experience with cases where reputational concerns are as serious as the legal stakes, including pre-commencement crisis work whose goal is to resolve the matter before either spouse files.

Threats of this kind are serious and time-sensitive. New York’s revenge-porn law and parallel civil statutes provide both criminal and civil remedies, and where the threats rise to the level of a family offense, an order of protection is available. Preserve every communication in which the threat was made — screenshots with timestamps, originals where possible — and avoid responding in writing in a way that could be portrayed as escalating. If account or device access is a concern, change passwords and enable two-factor authentication on email, cloud storage, and social platforms; in serious cases we engage digital forensics specialists. The threat itself is often as serious as the disclosure in shaping the leverage of a case — calm, documented, counseled responses almost always resolve the situation without disclosure, while the wrong response can make things much worse.

Domestic violence is a required factor in custody determinations, and it can also affect equitable distribution where the abuse caused dissipation of assets, interfered with the victim’s career, or rises to the high threshold of egregious conduct. If you are currently in danger, the first step is safety, not litigation — call 911 if you are in immediate danger; if you need an order of protection, the Family Court can issue temporary orders quickly, often the same day. Orders of protection can require the offending spouse to stay away from the residence, the workplace, and the children’s schools, and prohibit any contact, including electronic. On the other side of the ledger, false or exaggerated allegations of domestic violence do occur in connection with divorce, and the harm they cause is real. When we represent an unjustly accused spouse, we treat the matter with the same seriousness — building the record, pursuing dismissal of the petition where warranted, and ensuring that false allegations do not contaminate the custody analysis.

Mediation is a voluntary process in which the spouses, working with a neutral mediator, attempt to reach a comprehensive agreement without litigation. The mediator does not represent either spouse and does not give legal advice; each side typically retains "review counsel" to advise independently and to review any agreement before signature. Mediation is a good fit where the parties communicate reasonably, there is rough financial parity and transparency, and there is no coercive control or domestic violence undermining one spouse’s ability to advocate freely. It fails badly in the absence of those conditions — a non-monied spouse who agrees to mediate complex finances without independent counsel and a full understanding of the marital estate can sign away substantial rights. We routinely advise prospective mediation clients on whether the process fits their case, and we serve as review counsel where it does.

Collaborative divorce is a structured negotiation in which both parties and both attorneys sign a participation agreement committing to resolve the case without litigation — and if the process fails and either party files contested papers, both attorneys must withdraw and new litigation counsel must be retained. That termination provision is the defining feature; it creates a powerful incentive for everyone in the room to make the process work. Unlike mediation, each side is represented by their own counsel throughout, often supported by neutral financial and child specialists, and the product is a comprehensive settlement that becomes the basis for an uncontested divorce. The process suits parties who want to preserve a workable post-divorce relationship and whose disputes can be resolved through good-faith information sharing. It is poorly suited to cases involving financial concealment, severe custody conflict, or domestic violence dynamics.

In an uncontested case, yes — if the parties reach a comprehensive settlement before commencing or shortly after, the papers can be submitted and the judgment entered without either spouse appearing in court. Even in cases that begin contested, the great majority resolve through settlement: sometimes at a pretrial conference, sometimes mid-discovery, sometimes literally the morning of trial. What you cannot fully avoid in a contested action is some court involvement — preliminary conferences, status conferences, and motion appearances — though many are now routinely virtual. The trial itself, and any contested evidentiary hearing, can be avoided if the case settles, and that is the goal in most cases. Our job is to position the case so that any settlement reflects what trial would actually produce, not what an unprepared adversary hopes to obtain.

A prenuptial agreement is a contract entered into before marriage that defines what is separate and marital property, addresses spousal maintenance, and resolves certain financial issues in advance. To be enforceable in New York, it must be in writing, signed by both parties, and acknowledged with the formality required to record a deed; substantively, it requires full and fair financial disclosure at the time of signing, no fraud or duress, and conscionability — particularly for maintenance waivers. Whether to recommend one depends on circumstances: significant premarital assets, a closely held family business, expected inheritance, children from a prior marriage, prior divorce experience, or a significant disparity in earning capacity are common reasons to seriously consider one. Procedure matters as much as substance — the agreement should be negotiated well in advance of the wedding (a last-minute signing under time pressure is much more vulnerable to a duress claim), with each party represented by independent counsel and with full financial disclosure annexed. We do this work in both directions — drafting prenups and challenging poorly negotiated ones — and the question, on either side, is whether the agreement was the product of an informed, voluntary, and fairly negotiated process.

Yes. Postnuptial agreements are governed by the same framework and enforced on similar standards: a written instrument, signed and acknowledged, with full disclosure, no fraud or duress, and conscionable in substance. They are typically entered into in one of three situations — after a difficult period when the couple wants to reset expectations, after a significant change in financial circumstances during the marriage (a windfall, a major business launch, a substantial inheritance), or as part of estate planning when one or both spouses have children from prior relationships. Courts apply more careful scrutiny to postnups than to prenups, because spouses already owe each other fiduciary duties — so the procedural protections of independent counsel, full disclosure, and ample time to review matter even more. A poorly negotiated postnup will be set aside; a well-negotiated one can be a powerful planning tool.

Some things change by operation of law, many do not. The judgment of divorce, when entered, automatically revokes the appointment of a former spouse as executor, trustee, beneficiary, or agent under a will, revocable trust, power of attorney, or health care proxy — but the revocation takes effect on the judgment, not on filing or separation, and it does not reach federally governed retirement plans or most employer-sponsored life insurance, which require an affirmative change of beneficiary. During the case, the automatic orders prohibit either spouse from canceling or modifying health insurance on the other spouse or the children; after divorce, the formerly insured spouse usually loses coverage, and COBRA continuation is available for a limited period at the former spouse’s expense. We strongly recommend a coordinated review with the client’s estate planning and insurance advisors at the front end of any matrimonial case. Wills, trusts, powers of attorney, health care proxies, beneficiary designations, and HIPAA authorizations should all be revisited — doing the work early protects the client during the case and ensures the post-divorce documents reflect actual intentions.

Bring what you have, in whatever form. The most useful documents are the last two to three years of personal tax returns, recent paystubs for both spouses (if you have them), recent statements for the major bank and brokerage accounts you can access, the deed and most recent mortgage statement on the marital residence, any prenuptial or postnuptial agreement, and any court papers if a case is already pending. A list of assets and approximate values, a timeline of the marriage and key events, and a summary of how the current parenting arrangement actually operates are also helpful. None of this is a prerequisite — many clients come in with nothing in hand, either because they are at the very beginning or because their spouse controls the documents, and that is fine. What matters most is that you arrive prepared to speak candidly; the consultation is privileged, and the information we collect is what allows us to give a realistic assessment and honest advice.

Matrimonial cases are governed by a written retainer agreement that sets the hourly rates of each attorney working on the case, the billing practices, the scope of representation, the initial retainer deposit, and the client’s right to arbitrate any fee dispute. The initial retainer is a deposit held in our trust account; as work is performed, monthly invoices describe the work and time charged and are applied against the retainer balance, which is replenished as it draws down. Fees in matrimonial cases depend on the actual work required, which varies substantially with the complexity of the financial issues, whether custody is contested, and how the other side conducts itself — we do not quote a fixed price for contested work because we cannot honestly know in advance how the case will unfold. We can give a candid estimate of the range and will discuss the cost-benefit of every significant litigation decision (a deposition, a motion, an expert engagement) as the case progresses. In many cases, fees are subject to recovery from the other spouse, particularly where there is significant income disparity or litigation misconduct.

Yes. While we are based in Westchester and litigate frequently in Westchester Supreme Court, we handle matrimonial cases throughout New York’s metropolitan and Hudson Valley counties — New York, Rockland, Putnam, Dutchess, the Bronx — and have appeared in matters in additional counties when the facts and the client warrant. We also consult with out-of-state counsel on complex custody trials, business valuation disputes, and appellate matters where our experience is useful; the firm has a substantial appellate practice with multiple precedent-shaping decisions in matrimonial law. For a prospective client, the practical question is less about geography than about fit: we work best on complex, high-stakes matters — significant assets, contested custody, intricate business interests, reputational concerns. A straightforward, uncontested divorce with no children and modest assets is not the highest and best use of our team, and we will say so candidly if that is the case.

Complexity in matrimonial cases takes several forms, often in combination: financial (closely held businesses, executive compensation, carried interest, multi-jurisdictional assets, family trusts), custody (high-conflict dynamics, coercive control, mental health or substance issues, alienation, relocation), and reputational (public-figure clients, sensitive businesses, threats of disclosure). A complex case is not just a longer or more expensive version of a routine one; it is a different kind of case, requiring a different team composition, deeper discovery, expert engagement, and trial preparation calibrated to what is actually at stake. The cost of getting it wrong — financially, in custody, or in reputation — is often disproportionate to anything that would arise in a standard case. For more than two decades we have built our practice around exactly these matters, with custody trials taken to verdict, eight-figure equitable distribution awards litigated and settled, appellate precedent established on social-media restraints and business valuation methodology, and reputational matters handled with the discretion they require. If the case is straightforward, we will tell you; if it is not, we know what to do.