There was a recent decision by Judge Castorina, Jr. because of a husband’s failure to report his accurate  income,  the court felt that there was credible evidence to impute income to him. As a result, the court’s calculation used additional income in determining maintenance and child support and counsel fees for a pendente lite award.  A pendente lite award is a temporary award until the final divorce is granted either by a settlement or a trial on all the issues of the divorce.  This is a significant decision for those couples that have a partner who had unreported income. The court can conduct a lifestyle analysis. The court looks at what the expenses of the parties are as well as what deposits have been made and what credit cards have been paid.  In this case, this helped the Defendant wife remain in the home pendente lite so that she would have enough money to pay all the bills with the increased income attributable to the spouse.  KCC v. HKY, 55053/23 October 20.

In another interesting decision out of Nassau County by Justice Edmond M. Dane, there was a case about a couple’s pet. In this case the Defendant had a pet companion that the Plaintiff  had euthanized without the other party’s consent.  The attorney for the non-consenting spouse made an application stating that the other party violated the temporary restraining orders which goes into effect at the commencement of an action.  Temporary restraining orders prohibit either party from disposing, transferring, liquidating any assets after a divorce is commenced unless it is in the normal use and custom of the parties, such as paying recurring bills.

The court in this case determined that euthanizing a pet companion was not a violation of the restraining orders because it was not a financial asset.  The court did state however that the Defendant did have other remedies both civilly and criminally. The case was silent on why the pet was euthanized.  C.N. v. E.N., November 28.

In another case in Nassau County again by Justice Edmond Dane, Justice Dane found that in an abusive or hostile environment in a home is enough for the court to grant exclusive use and occupancy to the bothered spouse.  The court made clear that there does not have to necessarily be a physical component of abuse.  It could be enough to have a certain pattern of hostility and a pattern of conduct which was not only detrimental to the party but also to the children.  The court found that “conduct that impaired, affected, debilitated, or augmented a person’s mental health was a concern for the court; especially when that conduct is thrust upon a child.”

For those reasons the court found it necessary to grant exclusive use of occupancy of the marital home pendente lite.  This case is important because while the conduct of a spouse may not rise to the level of a family offense and a violation of the penal law statute conduct which can affect the mental health of a party or children is enough to determine the parties can no longer be reside together. Thus, the offending party was ordered to vacate the marital residence.  T.H. v. G.N., November 14.

In another case in the Southern district of New York under the Hague Convention, a petition sought the return of a child which was allegedly removed from Mexico by respondent mother without father’s consent or acquiescence.  Mother now moved to dismiss the case as moot on the grounds that the child was already in Mexico.  The court found that mother met her burden and that the case must be dismissed as moot noting that mother submitted evidence attesting that the child is currently residing in Mexico and with the exception of a three-day shopping trip near the Mexico border has been in Mexico continuously since March 2023.

The court noted that father did not present any evidence to the contrary even though the court granted him discovery on the question of whether the case was moot.  The court added as the child was still in Mexico and was not outside of Mexico in the United States so the case was dismissed.  Rubio v. Lopez, 23-CV-1423 November 20.