New York Divorce Report - New York's Divorce and Family Law Blog

Imagine, you have been kicked and choked by your spouse, your life has been threatened, you summon the strength and courage to seek intervention, you call the police and, when you finally go to court to press charges, you hear a judge say "Every woman needs a good pounding now and then." 

According to a special report in the New York Times, this actually happened in an upstate New York village court. Alarmingly, according to the report, this type of ignorant justice is not an isolated incident.  It may be typical of the local courts statewide. 

In alarming detail, William Glaberson details how "local justice" is dispensed by unqualified and untrained judges, some barely possessing a high school education.  The article points out that New York demands more training for its manicurists and hair stylists than for the local judges. The judges are not screened for competence, temperament, or even reading ability.  (In the second part of the series,  one judge's reading comprehension is questioned.)  Worse, yet, there is little, if any, oversight of the local judiciary.

In areas outside of New York City, these local courts may be the court of first instance in domestic violence cases. The defendant may be arraigned in these courts and a temporary order of protection issued. While some allegations of domestic violence may be suspect, many others are well founded. Domestic violence matters require particular sensitivity. Unquestionably, a victim of domestic violence and abuse must be protected. On the other hand, safeguards must be in place to protect the falsely accused.

Unfortunately, the article demonstrates, often a judge's ignorance, bias and prejudice becomes the rule of law:

In 20 years in office in Haverstraw, north of New York City in Rockland County, Justice Ralph T. Romano drew attention for his opinions on women, state files show. Arraigning a man in 1997 on charges that he had hit his wife in the face with a telephone, he laughed and asked, “What was wrong with this?” Arraigning a woman on charges that she had sexually abused a 12-year-old boy, the justice asked his courtroom, “Where were girls like this when I was 12?”

Across the Hudson, Joseph Cerbone, the Mount Kisco justice with the miniature violin, persuaded a young woman to drop her abuse case against the son of a couple he had done legal work for. She told the commission that while she did not believe the justice’s claim that the son was “a decent guy” who had “made a mistake,” she had no choice.

“I kind of felt I had no one behind me, no support,” she said. “And by getting a phone call from a judge, I felt that maybe I was making a mistake by going through with these charges.”

Quite simply, this article is a wake up call and a reminder that we have not evolved as far as we think we have.

Last week, Justice Jacqueline Silbermann sent a strong message to abusive spouses; domestic violence will be considered in the distribution of marital assets.

In DeSilva v. DeSilva, she ruled that a wife was entitled to all of the couple's marital property because her husband had verbally and physically abused her. This decision went even further than her earlier decision in Havell v. Islam, in which she awarded ninety-five percent of a couple's marital property to the wife because the husband had brutally attacked her with a barbell, nearly killing her and leaving her with permanent injuries. 

In Havell, the Court stated that because the husband's behavior "shocks the conscience," it was appropriate to deviate from the property division that might otherwise be appropriate under the circumstances of the case.

The husband in Havell, after violently beating his wife with a barbell, told their children not to worry about helping their mother because she was already dead.  The Appellate Division upheld Justice Silbermann’s ruling by concluding that the husband’s marital misconduct could be taken into account when dividing property as long as it was "so egregious or uncivilized as to bespeak of a blatant disregard of the marital relationship.”

Fortunately, the husband’s conduct in De Silva was not as violent as the physical assault in Havell, but, it was, in the Court’s view, as egregious, thereby justifying an award to the wife of all of the parties’ assets.  

In De Silva, Mrs. De Silva alleged that Mr. De Silva had engaged in a long history of abuse towards her, which, increased over time in both frequency and intensity. Mrs. De Silva alleged that her husband spat in her face; while she was pregnant with their second child, threw a packed duffel bag at her stomach; and engaged in verbal tirades in front of their children and other witnesses. Mrs. DeSilva testified that she feared for her safety and the safety of her children, and suffered extreme mental anguish because of her husband's conduct.

From these decisions, it is certain that abusive behavior, be it a single violent incident or a prolonged course of conduct, will be a factor in equitable distribution.   What remains to be determined is how a party’s violent, abusive or egregious conduct will interplay with the other statutory factors of DRL §236(b)(5)(d) (i.e., the parties’ respective age, health, the duration of the marriage, etc.) which are required to be considered by a court rendering judgment on equitable distribution.