NEW YORK GET LAW:

New York State is one of the few States whose laws deal with the religious barriers to remarriage. Specifically Domestic Relations Law (the section of law dealing with divorce) Section 253, otherwise known as the “Get Law.” It states that the Plaintiff shall affirmatively state that to the best of his or her knowledge he or she has prior to the entry of such final judgment, taken all steps solely within his or her power to remove all barriers to the Defendants remarriage following the annulment or divorce. One is simply obligated to remove any barrier to the remarriage of ones spouse. In the case of Orthodox Jews, this means a valid Get. That applies to one who is the Plaintiff, or the one who initiates the action. Upon a spouses refusal to give a Get, the court can dismiss their civil divorce proceeding.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent lutptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi. Nam liber tempor cum soluta nobis eleifend option congue nihil imperdiet doming id quod mazim placerat facer possim assum. Typi non habent claritatem insitam; est usus legentis in iis qui facit eorum claritatem. Investigationes demonstraverunt lectores legere me lius quod ii legunt saepius.

But what does one do when the recalcitrant spouse is the Defendant, the one who is being sued for divorce. The Courts, particularly, in Counties which have a high concentration of Orthodox Jews have applied Domestic Relations Law Section 253 (B (5) (h). under this statute of in any decision where appropriate, the Court is to consider the effect of the removal barriers to remarriage. This section has been implemented in many different scenarios by the New York Supreme Courts.

The Appellate Division, in Pinto v. Pinto, affirmed a Nassau County Lower Court decision which awarded a wife the entire marital estate, due to the husband’s refusal to give a Get. In that case the husband was the Defendant.

But what does one do when the recalcitrant spouse is the Defendant, the one who is being sued for divorce. The Courts, particularly, in Counties which have a high concentration of Orthodox Jews have applied Domestic Relations Law Section 253 (B (5) (h). under this statute of in any decision where appropriate, the Court is to consider the effect of the removal barriers to remarriage. This section has been implemented in many different scenarios by the New York Supreme Courts.

In another decision, Justice Sunshine in S.A. v. K.F. a 2009, decision from Kings County where the recalcitrant husband was the defendant. The court after trial issued a decision that the husband was entitled to receive both a maintenance award due to his age and not being the wage earner for a lengthy period of time, as well as a portion of the wife’s pension. At that trial, credible evidence was presented by a Rabbi that the husband has refused to give a Get. The Court in S.A. received further testimony as to what barriers in relation to the restrictions on the wife’s social and economic status, she faced in relation to not receiving a Get from her husband. The Court’s granting of an award of maintenance and a portion of the wife’s pension was contingent on the husband giving a Get within 45 days of the entry of the Judgment of Divorce; otherwise it would not be received. This case cites extensively to the Rabbi’s testimony explaining the Get process and even the history of when a husband may be forced to give a Get under halachah. In other unpublished decisions, Courts have even limited or stopped parenting time between a parent and child due to the recalcitrant spouse refusal to give a Get.

When the court issues such decisions one must consult their respective Rabbi. A Get in religious terms (Halacha), must be given and received voluntarily otherwise it may be considered a “meusah” or forced Get which can lead to halachic ramifications as to its validity.

Today our secular courts are quite aware of the ramification of the one who refuses to receive a Get, and they will use the applicable laws to assist the spouse who is not receiving a Get.


To be continued…

The Effects of the Ponzi Schemes on Divorce Settlements:

The community at large has been severely affected by ponzi schemes whether it has been with Madoff Securities or one which recently hit the press aimed specifically to the local Orthodox community. How does this effect settlements that were negotiated, prior to the realization that these accounts in fact have no value. One who has divided the assets with ones spouse maintaining the account (which was later found to be valueless) and the other spouse receiving in liquid funds or trade off of some other asset of value. A law suit has been filed in New York County; Steven Simkin, a partner in a large New York law firm, entered in a divorce settlement with his wife of thirty years in which they divided all their marital assets. Included in that assets division was an investment of 5.4 million dollars with Bernie Madoff of which Mr. Simkin paid his wife 2.7 million dollars in cash for the value of the account. The agreement was executed on June 27, 2006. A time period before the revelation that in fact Madoff's investments were in fact a ponzi scheme. In February, 2009 Mr. Simkin instituted an action against his ex-wife to recover the amount paid to her for her share of that account. This raises an interesting question of law. Can one go back after an agreement was executed, based on new found evidence to renegotiate or recover assets thought to be in existence?

The case is pending, and one in which this column will keep you updated on when a decision will be rendered.

The issues to be reviewed are: Did Mr. Simkin have reason to know, despite the fact that statements were issued as to the balance of the account, that the returns were not in the realm of reality and in sync with normal rate of returns? Did Mr. Simkin or his attorney have a duty beyond verifying the statement balance that the account and funds were in liquid or able to become liquid prior to the execution of the agreement?


Justice Rigler said that Mr. Schaeffer had manipulated events to place his wife in the position of having to submit to the rabbinical court's authority and dismiss her divorce proceedings in New York.


This case before the court will have far reaching effects, as many people, especially in recent times having been effected by numerous schemes, where people have been left with assets that do not in fact exist. Thus accounts that individuals divided as part of their marital agreements, years later they may find (after much publicity) that these accounts in fact not existent. Unfortunately, an occurrence that has become a regular news item. An obvious danger, always lies in the fact that the spouse who received the payout, may no longer have funds to recover from as well. This is quit different from stock accounts, that due to market fluctuations many loose their value and one would have no right to seek recoupment.


UPCOMING ARTICLES: Get laws and its practical application, Internet and Divorce- cause and effect


Martin E. Friedlander, Esq. is the principal of MARTIN FRIEDLANDER, PC specializing in Matrimonial/Family law.