Tag Archives: litigation

STI Transmission & Divorce: A Form of Domestic Violence

Posted on by

Alan R. Feigenbaum ●

New York Law Journal, January 22, 2026 —

This author has written before, and will write again, that domestic violence takes many forms that go beyond the proverbial black eye.

Infidelity and sexually transmitted infections (“STI”) are two topics that are not foreign to the annals of marital discord. These topics confront divorce lawyers on a recurring basis. How these issues can interact with the Equitable Distribution Law is addressed in the recent decision of Justice Edmund M. Dane in N.S. v. T.S., 2025 NY Slip Op 51897(U) (Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty.).

Justice Dane’s decision in N.S. holds that the transmission of an STI by one spouse to another spouse constitutes a form of domestic violence.

In N.S., the parties were married in 2019, and have one child together, also born in 2019. The husband is currently serving a term of incarceration at Mohawk Correctional Facility in Rome, New York.

There are many facets of the N.S. case, however this article will focus exclusively on the issue of the husband’s transmission of an STI to the wife, and how that can impact equitable distribution.

Read more on our website.

Divorce Law and Civil Procedure: The Dynamic Duo

Posted on by

Alan R. Feigenbaum ●

New York Law Journal, December 11, 2025 —

For the lawyers out there, when you graduated law school, did you know what the terms “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” meant? I did not.

I do recall reading cases on “res judicata” and “collateral estoppel” in Civil Procedure class; however, both concepts were taught in such an amorphous manner it was hard to understand what they meant, in practice.

The Honorable Aaron D. Maslow’s recent decision in M.H. v. S.A., 2025 NY Slip Op 51713(U) (Sup. Ct., Kings Cty. 2025) explains all of these concepts in a manner that provides clarity. The decision also addresses New York City’s Gender-Motivated Violence Act (GMVA), which to my mind is relevant to the practice of divorce law.

In M.H., the parties started a romantic relationship in 2008. They began living together in 2010 and registered as domestic partners. They share one child born in 2013.

The plaintiff-mother alleged that the defendant-father engaged in “escalating controlling and abusive behavior” including “yelling, blocking her movements, and physically restraining her.” In one instance, the mother alleged that the father “screamed at her until she lost consciousness” and that he “monitored her communications” and “accused her of ‘whoring around’ when she was with her male friends.”

After their child was born, the parties relocated from New York to Massachusetts where they both worked for MIT. There, the mother alleged that the father “controlled their joint finances, threatened her about losing her job, and later defunded her position.”

The decision recounts several other alleged incidents of abuse, in multiple states, including one incident where the father allegedly “dragged their child by the hood of a jacket” in March 2016, followed by pushing the mother onto a bed and choking her in December 2016, and then another incident in June 2018 when the father allegedly confronted the mother “about a custody agreement and physically restrained her when she refused to sign it.”

Read more on our website.

Unnecessarily Prolonging Divorce Litigation May Cost You Dearly

Posted on by

Alan R. Feigenbaum ●

New York Law Journal, September 25, 2025 —

As a matrimonial lawyer, we have all experienced the client who asks us weekly, if not daily, why we cannot effectively find a way to compel his or her spouse to settle what the client believes (and perhaps you, as the lawyer believe) is a straightforward case.

The answer to that question remains the same: in New York, divorcing spouses have an absolute right to a trial, and they are not required to settle. This is, of course, not the answer that the client who is looking to exit the process wants to hear, but it is, nonetheless, the answer.

Divorcing spouses have differing views on what constitutes unreasonable or obstructive conduct. Sometimes, one spouse will make a settlement proposal and, if the other spouse so much as hints at disagreeing with any of it, the offering spouse will declare the other spouse “unreasonable.” We can debate what it means to be “unreasonable” for the rest of time.

For now, let us examine the consequences to the divorcing spouse who intentionally blocks any path to a settlement, whether due to (a) underlying psychological disorder, (b) a refusal to share ordinary course financial information that is otherwise discoverable in a matrimonial action, and/or (c) the assertion of positions that the opposing spouse and his/her lawyer would never in good faith accept because those positions, at best, have no basis in law or fact.

Is there any consequence, or are there any consequences, to that type of divorcing spouse, even though you cannot compel that same spouse to settle? The answer is yes, and that brings us to the Appellate Division, Third Department’s recent decision in Marshak v. Marshak, 2025 NY Slip Op 04281.

Read more on our website.

Attorney Spotlight: Jacqueline Combs—Los Angeles

Posted on by

Stacy D. Phillips ●

For this edition of Attorney Spotlight, I am proud to feature one of my esteemed Los Angeles colleagues in Blank Rome’s Matrimonial & Family Law group: Jacqueline Combs.

Jacqueline Combs
Partner

A graduate of the University of California, Los Angeles, and the Chapman University School of Law, Jackie has proven to be an indispensable member of our firm’s Matrimonial & Family Law practice group. Formerly an associate at the firm, Jackie was recently elevated to partner at Blank Rome. I am thrilled that she has achieved this very distinctive honor. 

Having been practicing law for more than 12 years, Jackie began her legal career as a corporate counsel for private and publicly traded companies and worked with clients on high-stakes business and legal issues. Over time, she found she wanted more direct ways to help people through her practice, which led Jackie to pursue family law. Jackie has integrated her experience as corporate counsel into her family law practice. A successful lawyer must excel in negotiation, especially in family law cases. Jackie exemplifies this by consistently bringing her exceptional negotiation skills to every client and case she handles.

Read more on our website.

Attorney Spotlight: Pauline M. Martin—Los Angeles

Posted on by

Stacy D. Phillips ●

For this edition of Attorney Spotlight, I am proud to highlight one of my esteemed Los Angeles colleagues in Blank Rome’s Matrimonial & Family Law group: Pauline M. Martin.

Pauline M. Martin
Of Counsel

A graduate of the University of California, Irvine, and the UCLA School of Law, Pauline has been practicing law for more than 20 years. She is an indispensable member of our firm’s Matrimonial & Family Law practice group. 

Pauline’s journey as a lawyer is remarkable in many ways, and it is notable that she did not begin her career working in family law. Initially, out of law school, Pauline began her practice in a large civil litigation firm. Within 10 years of working in this field, Pauline recognized that she wanted to get more of a “hands-on” legal experience that she felt she had not experienced quite yet as a lawyer. In 2008, Pauline became a mother and realized a new focus in life: family. Pauline spent a few years caring for her son and helping her husband with entrepreneurial ventures. She decided that in becoming a parent, she understood what was important in life and thus began her career path in family law.

Read more on our website.

Attorney Spotlight: Alan R. Feigenbaum—New York

Posted on by

Stacy D. Phillips ●

This edition of Attorney Spotlight highlights one of my esteemed New York colleagues in Blank Rome’s Matrimonial & Family Law Group—Alan R. Feigenbaum.

Alan R. Feigenbaum
Partner

A graduate of Tulane University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Alan has been practicing law for more than 20 years and is an invaluable member of our firm’s Matrimonial & Family Law practice group.

Alan has been interested in reading, writing, and communication as far back as he can remember, and a career in law turned out to be an excellent avenue for his passions. Following law school, Alan practiced commercial litigation at a large firm for several years, where he found that the training and initial experience overall was essential to a young lawyer. However, Alan was eager to build even deeper attorney-client relationships and the best path forward was to transition into family law. Alan always strives to add value to the lives of others, and working so directly in his clients’ lives is what he has found truly rewarding.

Read more on our website.

Attorney Spotlight: Philadelphia—Mary T. Vidas

Posted on by

Stacy D. Phillips ●

This edition of Attorney Spotlight highlights one of my revered Philadelphia colleagues in Blank Rome’s Matrimonial & Family Law group—Mary T. Vidas.

Mary T. Vidas
Partner

A graduate of Georgetown University and the Temple University Beasley School of Law, Mary has been practicing law for 40 years and is a preeminent member of our firm’s Matrimonial & Family Law practice group. Mary began her career at Blank Rome as a Litigation Law Clerk working in matrimonial as well as asbestos litigation and personal injury law. After a time of splitting her work across these different practices, Mary eventually transitioned completely to matrimonial and family law, having taken to it well, and has enjoyed working with her clients throughout her storied career as a lawyer. During her career, Mary has served inter alia, as Chair of the American Bar Association’s Section of Family Law as well as presently serving as Chair of the ABA Family Law Section’s Strategic Planning Committee. She is currently the Family Law Section Delegate to the ABA House of Delegates. She has also been a frequent lecturer for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute, the Academy of Matrimonial Law, the Family Law Section of the American Bar Association, and the Pennsylvania Institute of CPAs. Mary has also worked with the Philadelphia Bar Association’s Judicial Commission leading investigations into judicial candidates and was recently honored as the Bar Association’s “Bar Star” for her work in this regard. Mary truly is a “Bar Star.”

Continue reading →

Attorney Spotlight: New York—Norman Heller

Posted on by

Stacy D. Phillips ●

This edition of Attorney Spotlight highlights one of my revered New York City colleagues in Blank Rome’s Matrimonial & Family Law group, Norman Heller.

Norman S. Heller
Partner

A graduate of Haverford College and Boston University School of Law, Norm has been practicing law for over 40 years and does incredible work for his clients. Before entering the world of matrimonial law, Norm worked as an appellate attorney and later a trial lawyer in the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office, handling various felony cases and matters while making a name for himself in the profession. Norm then began to practice matrimonial law, where he found himself representing clients in complex divorce, custody, and equitable distribution matters in the states of both New York and Connecticut.

As a lawyer, Norm is and always has been the consummate professional. No matter the situation or client he is working with, Norm is the pinnacle of how a lawyer should conduct him or herself. Norm treats his clients and fellow lawyers with respect, always exuding confidence, and maintains his reputation for fairness with a good nature, even in the heat of a difficult legal battle.

Continue reading →

Protecting Children’s Safety: The Divorce Court’s Awesome Power

Posted on by

New York Law Journal, November 2, 2023 ●

Alan R. Feigenbaum ●

In 2016, ESPN’s 30 for 30 series released “Doc and Darryl,” a documentary profile of the former New York Mets legends Dwight “Doc” Gooden and Darryl Strawberry.

In that documentary, Bob Forrest—identified as an addiction specialist—delivers the following, harrowing words on the issue of substance abuse: “In the end, if you don’t realize how $%@! up you are being a drug addict, you’re probably going to keep $%@! up.”

Outside of divorce practice, some of us have lived the terribly sad experience of trying to help someone who succumbs to substance abuse who does not himself/herself come to the realization that Forrest spoke of in Doc and Darryl.

As divorce lawyers, many of us have crossed paths with this phenomenon as well, which often times manifests itself in the form of a client who, despite handwriting on the wall type evidence of a substance abuse problem, remains adamant that “there is nothing wrong with me.”

When children of divorce find themselves in a situation where one, or both parents, suffer from substance abuse problems, trial judges in matrimonial cases are faced with the daunting task of establishing appropriate protocols to ensure that those same children are kept safe.

Such was the case in the matter of SG v. MG, NY Slip Op 51063(U) (Supreme Court, Nassau County, Oct. 5, 2023) (Dane, J.), where the court had to confront how to address a party’s continued use of Adderall in the context of safeguards surrounding access with the parties’ children.

Read more on our website.

Attention New York Divorce Lawyers: Learn Insurance Law

Posted on by

New York Law Journal, October 4, 2023 ●

Alan R. Feigenbaum and Marilyn T. Sugarman* ●

By a show of hands, how many matrimonial lawyers practicing in the state of New York have heard of the “Age 29 Law”? Anybody? We didn’t think so. Neither of these authors had ever heard of it either.

All of that changed, however, on July 27, 2023, when the Appellate Division, First Department, issued its decision in B.D. v. E.D., 2023 NY Slip Op. 03971.

Before exploring the facts of B.D. v. E.D., we must understand, as best we can, the contours of the Age 29 Law which was enacted almost 15 years ago.

As we are living in a time where, sadly, reading has become passé, rather than dig into the annals of insurance law texts, we elected to find out what the Age 29 Law is through—what else—a Google search.

In order to obtain health insurance coverage under a parent’s policy pursuant to the Age 29 Law (L 2009, ch 240) the “young adult” must satisfy certain criteria: (1) be unmarried; (2) be 29 years of age or under; (3) not be insured by or eligible for comprehensive health insurance through his/her employer; and, (4) live, work or reside in New York State or the geographic area of the health insurance company’s service. In addition, the parent must be covered under the applicable policy, or, pursuant to a right under COBRA or state continuation coverage law. We note that the “young adult” does not have to reside with either parent, be financially dependent on either parent, or be a student.

At issue in B.D. was the mother’s 2022 motion to direct the father to pay for continued medical insurance coverage under the Age 29 Law for the parties’ then 26-year-old daughter until she turned 29. At the trial court level, the Honorable Ariel D. Chesler denied the mother’s motion, and the mother appealed.

Read more on our website.

*Marilyn T. Sugarman serves as special counsel at The Mandel Law Firm.