Strategic Matrimonial Counsel for Complex Estates

Yes, provided they meet both procedural and substantive standards under DRL § 236(B)(3). Procedurally, the agreement must be in writing, signed by both parties, and acknowledged with the formality of a deed (Real Property Law § 309-a). Substantively, it must not be unconscionable at the time of execution. Full financial disclosure attached as schedules, independent counsel for each party, and adequate time before the wedding are not strictly required by statute but are the strongest defenses against later attack.

Technically yes, but the failure rate is high. DIY prenups regularly omit the deed-grade acknowledgment required by DRL § 236(B)(3), include unconscionable terms that a court will not enforce, fail to attach the financial disclosure schedules needed to defend the agreement against later attack, or are signed too close to the wedding to survive a duress challenge. The marginal cost of competent counsel is repaid many times over if the agreement is ever tested.

Closely held businesses are valued by qualified independent experts (typically CPAs with ABV credentials) using accepted methodologies — income approach (discounted cash flow), market approach (comparable transactions), or asset approach. The discount for lack of marketability is litigated case by case. The owner-spouse's compensation is often normalized to a market rate to isolate the business's actual earning power. Choice of expert and choice of valuation date can swing the resulting distribution dramatically.

O'Brien v O'Brien is the foundational New York case on the treatment of professional credentials and business goodwill in equitable distribution. The doctrine that survives in current practice is that the enterprise goodwill of a closely held business (the goodwill that would transfer to a buyer) is marital property subject to distribution, while the personal goodwill attributable specifically to the owner-spouse's individual reputation and skill is not. The line between the two is the central question in many business-valuation disputes.

The practice itself, as a going concern with enterprise value, is divisible to the extent of its enterprise goodwill. The cash flow generated by the practice is reachable through maintenance and child support obligations. The personal professional credentials (the license itself) are no longer divisible as a standalone marital asset under post-2016 law. The combined effect for most professionals is that the business's enterprise value is part of equitable distribution, but the practitioner's continued earning capacity is captured through support obligations rather than asset division.

Through forensic financial discovery — subpoenas of bank, brokerage, and tax records; depositions under oath; lifestyle audits that compare reported income to actual spending; and tracing analysis through shell entities and family member accounts. Where the record supports it, we file sanctions motions for non-disclosure. The early and aggressive discovery posture is often the single best predictor of recovering concealed assets.

Yes, on a showing of substantial change in circumstances since the prior order. Common modification triggers include a significant change in either party's income, the payee's remarriage (which terminates maintenance), the payee's cohabitation in a marriage-like relationship (which may terminate maintenance under the parties' agreement), the payor's involuntary loss of employment, or the payor's retirement at a reasonable age. The presumptive duration in the original order can also be revisited.

Generally no — under DRL § 236(B)(1)(d), an inheritance received by one spouse alone during the marriage is separate property and not subject to equitable distribution. The protection can be lost through commingling: depositing inherited funds into a joint account, using inherited funds to acquire jointly titled property, or actively managing the inheritance jointly during the marriage. The party claiming separate property treatment bears the burden of tracing the asset back to the inheritance.

DRL § 236(B)(6) sets a statutory formula for both temporary (pendente lite) and post-divorce maintenance. The calculation involves the parties' incomes, whether child support is also being paid, and (for duration) the length of the marriage on an advisory schedule. For 2024, the formula applies to the first $228,000 of the payor's income; above that cap, the court has full discretion to apply the formula, deviate, or decline maintenance entirely based on the statutory factors.

Generally no. New York courts since Blickstein v Blickstein and its progeny have held that ordinary marital fault — adultery, irreconcilable differences, garden-variety bad behavior — is not a factor in equitable distribution. The narrow exception is for egregious conduct that shocks the conscience of the court, such as severe domestic violence, attempted murder, or financial conduct that intentionally dissipated marital assets. In ordinary divorces, the equitable distribution analysis is financial, not moral.