Landmark Cases
Coffinas & Lusthaus, P.C. provides family law representation for clients throughout the five boroughs of New York City, as well as in Nassau and Westchester Counties. Our lawyers have more than 15 years of experience handling divorce, child custody, support, and a range of other family law matters. As a resource to clients and others seeking information about our work in this area, we provide the following summaries of our landmark cases. To learn more about our services or to discuss your case with an attorney, contact Coffinas & Lusthaus today.
Stavans v. Stavans, 207 A.D.2d 392, 615 N.Y.S.2d 712 (1994)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.
It was held to be proper that the marital assets would be distributed evenly between the plaintiff and the defendant. The determination was made in consideration of: the income and property of each party at the time of the marriage and at the start of the divorce, the duration of the marriage, the age and health of both parties, the plaintiff's waiver of maintenance, and the plaintiff's contribution to the marital property as a wage-earner, spouse, homemaker, and mother of three children.
Vecchiarelli v. Vecchiarelli, A.D.2d 411, 656 N.Y.S.2d 337 (1997)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.
After the mother failed to facilitate visitation between father and daughter, the father sought an order for contempt. The court held that the transfer of custody of both children to the father lacked a substantial basis, mainly since there was insufficient evidence to determine how it was in the children's best interests to be moved to live with the father. The court added that the children should have had assistance from court-appointed Law Guardians at the hearing.
Finkelstein v. Finkelstein, 266 A.D.2d 505, 698 N.Y.S.2d 914 (1999)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.
The court held that there was a "sound and substantial basis" in the record for the trial court's determination that it was in the child's best interest to award sole custody to the wife.
Meza v. Meza, 294 A.D.2d 414, 743 N.Y.S.2d 122 (2002)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.
The division of marital assets in marriages of long duration in which the parties each contributed equally should be as equal as possible. The Supreme Court should have awarded the plaintiff 50% of the value of the defendant's interest in his company, and 50% of the value of the defendant's share in his 1997 profit sharing plan from his company. However, the Supreme Court was correct in declining to award the plaintiff an equitable distribution of the condominium because there was insufficient evidence to conclude that it was a marital asset subject to equitable distribution.
Paul v. Paul, 305 A.D.2d 565, 759 N.Y.S.2d 374 (2003)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.
The trial court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion to vacate court orders that directed the plaintiff to repay certain amounts received by mistake from the defendant's disability retirement benefit. The plaintiff had failed to object to the terms of the orders, which were entered to correct a previous qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that erroneously called for defendant's former employer to pay the plaintiff a portion of the defendant's disability retirement benefit, even though the plaintiff was not entitled to receive it.
Somma v. Somma, 19 A.D.3d 477, 797 N.Y.S.2d 523 (2005)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.
A divorce decree properly issued in Delaware was held to be valid in New York. Nevertheless, the Delaware court did not have personal jurisdiction over the respondent, and therefore no jurisdiction to distribute the respondent's marital property held outside Delaware. The distribution of property held within New York would have to be resolved in a New York court.
Nash v. Yablon-Nash, 16 A.D.3d 471, 790 N.Y.S.2d 718 (2005)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.
The trial court properly denied the plaintiff's motion to modify a prior order of visitation so as to provide expanded and unsupervised visitation with the parties' children. The plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of a change in circumstances. The plaintiff's conclusory and unsubstantiated statements fell far short of the evidence required to trigger a hearing on the issue.
Zuckerman v. Zuckerman, 34 A.D.3d 403, 826 N.Y.S.2d 207 (2006)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Even though the plaintiff died prior to the entry of findings of fact and settlement of the judgment of divorce, the judgment was properly entered nunc pro tunc. The parties had already executed the stipulation settling all issues in the action, including the grounds for divorce and the distribution of assets. The plaintiff was entitled to entry of the judgment prior to his demise; he had substantially performed all the conditions of the stipulation and fulfilled all his financial obligations.
