When “Equitable” Is Anything but Equal

- Alexandra Weaderhorn

This month, the Supreme Court of Nassau County’s Matrimonial Part issued a thoughtfully reasoned decision exploring the outer boundaries of equitable distribution under New York law. The Court addressed whether extraordinary facts could justify a division of marital assets that is unequal. While New York courts routinely emphasize that equitable does not necessarily mean equal, this case stands out as a rare example of equity requiring a result at the farthest end of the spectrum.

New York’s equitable distribution statute is grounded in the concept of marriage as an economic partnership. In most cases, that partnership leads courts toward a roughly equal division of marital property. But the statute deliberately grants trial courts broad discretion to consider the realities of the marriage and to fashion a result that is fair under the circumstances, employing several factors to consider, not simply a mechanical formula.

Here, the Court was presented with a trial record reflecting severe and sustained misconduct by one spouse. The evidence included credible testimony of repeated physical threats, intimidation involving firearms in a children’s hospital, and a pattern of coercive and dangerous behavior that culminated in orders of protection. The Court also heard compelling proof that one spouse engaged in reckless sexual conduct during the marriage, which caused the other spouse lasting medical consequences, including surgical intervention and the need for lifelong treatment.

In evaluating these facts, the Court concluded that such conduct fell squarely within the statutory definition of domestic violence, which is explicitly relevant to equitable distribution. In fact, the husband was incarcerated at the time of trial and decision arising from incidents that included serious domestic violence, as well as drug and firearm-related criminal charges.

The Court specifically points to the 2020 amendment to the factors to be considered in deciding Equitable Distribution under DRL 236 (B)(5)(d)(14) requiring courts to consider acts of domestic violence by a party against the other, as the term is defined in the Social Services Law.

Importantly, the Court framed the analysis in terms of restoring equity, rather than treating the distribution as a punishment. The Court carefully analyzed the nature, extent, duration, and impact of the conduct, and how it fundamentally undermined the marital partnership itself, and its effect on the marital estate. Specifically, the parties were married for less than 3 years, they had resided in a property that was sold, which belonged to the Wife prior to the marriage and constituted her separate property, the Husband was found to have wastefully dissipated assets, and the largest assets at issue were the Wife’s QPP and TDA.

The Court also credited evidence that marital funds were repeatedly dissipated on non-marital purposes, while the non-offending spouse bore the financial responsibility for the household and child.

The relatively short duration of the marriage further informed the analysis, limiting any equitable claim to assets accumulated largely through the efforts of the non-offending spouse, what we might call “contribution”.

Taking all of these factors together, the Court awarded the Wife 100% of the marital assets. While such outcomes are exceedingly uncommon, the decision underscores an important principle: equitable distribution is not about symmetry, but about justice. Where one spouse’s conduct causes profound personal, medical, and economic harm, equity may demand a result that looks nothing like an even split.

In rare cases, equity does not lie in the middle.

An interest note about how grounds played a role here: The divorce itself was granted on no-fault grounds, irretrievable breakdown of the marriage under DRL § 170(7), rather than on traditional fault grounds such as cruel and inhuman treatment or, based on the trial record, potentially adultery. The decision underscores that even where a divorce proceeds on no-fault grounds, the Court may still fully consider serious misconduct and domestic violence when fashioning an equitable distribution of marital assets.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information contained herein is not intended to create, and receipt or reading of it does not establish, an attorney–client relationship. Legal matters are fact-specific, and laws vary by jurisdiction. You should not act upon, or rely upon, any information in this article without seeking professional legal counsel licensed in your jurisdiction regarding your specific situation.