J.N. v. T.N.

• Decision Date: 15 September 2022
• Docket Number: XXXXXX/20XX
• Citation: 77 Misc.3d 894,182 N.Y.S.3d 497
• Parties: J.N., Plaintiff, v. T.N., Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

77 Misc.3d 894

182 N.Y.S.3d 497

J.N., Plaintiff,

v.T.N., Defendant.

XXXXXX/20XX

Supreme Court, New York County, New York.

Decided on September 15, 2022

Teitler & Teitler, LLP, New York City (Jaime Weiss and Nicholas Lobenthal of counsel), for plaintiff.

T.N., pro se, and Sipsas, PC, Astoria (Ioannis P. Sipsas of counsel), for defendant.

Kathleen Waterman-Marshall, J.

INTRODUCTION

There are cases in which the end of the marriage does not mark the end of the abuse. This, unfortunately, is one of those cases.

On the surface, this divorce action, overall and specifically the financial issues, should have been relatively easy work to settle or to try. Plaintiff J.N. ("Wife") and Defendant T.N. ("Husband") did not have a long-term marriage; they are married just under eleven years. They have three children who are well-cared for and generally in good health. The custody trial concluded on February 24, 2020, and the Court issued its Decision and Order on custody on October 7, 2020. Their marital assets are not complicated and consist largely of stocks and investments acquired as a result of Wife's employment with [a global investment bank, herein the investment bank]. Wife fully disclosed all of the marital and separate property assets in her name and control and had them valued by experts. She complied with discovery throughout this litigation and with this Court's trial rules. She appeared ready for trial on each day.

Yet, getting to and completing the financial trial has been neither simple nor easy. From the start, Husband took every opportunity to delay this matter and harm Wife, emotionally and financially. His harassing conduct during the litigation — in and out of the courtroom — was a continuation of his abusive conduct during the marriage. He asserted meritless claims and employed litigation strategies admittedly meant to run up attorney's fees and wear Wife down. He utterly failed to comply with discovery. He took intentional and calculated actions to damage Wife's career and professional reputation in direct violation of Court Order. He then refused, without excuse, to show up for trial.

In determining equitable distribution of marital assets, the court considers fifteen factors, including, inter alia , the contributions of each party to the financial partnership, wasteful dissipation, and the impossibility of ascertaining marital assets. As of 2020, when the New York State Legislature amended DRL § 236 B (5)(d)(14), the court now may consider domestic violence, as that term is defined in the Social Services Law, in formulating a distributive award. This case implicates this new provision. Indeed, this Court cannot reach the correct equitable result on the parties’ financial matters without considering Husband's domestic violence during the marriage, abuse throughout this litigation, and its effects.

In this regard, and by necessity, the trial record goes far beyond purely financial matters. It includes the testimony and documents from the custody trial, including a domestic violence finding, and an almost exhaustive representation of Husband's post-Note of Issue motions and other efforts to delay and sabotage the financial trial. What follows, therefore, is a chronology of these things, all of which support the conclusions herein.

THE CUSTODY ORDER

On October 7, 2020, following a full and fair trial including party and forensic testimony, the Court (Hon. Lori S. Sattler, J.S.C.) issued its Decision and Order awarding Wife custody of the parties’ three minor children with parenting time to Husband. The Court specifically found, inter alia, that Husband perpetrated domestic violence during the marriage against Wife:

The Court further makes a finding that there was domestic violence during the marriage of an emotional nature. Plaintiff holds a position of great authority at [the investment bank] and earns significant amounts of money. Yet, it is clear that she capitulated throughout the marriage toward Defendant's positions. His obsessional style and his paranoia seeped into their day to day living. He did not trust anyone who worked for them or any of her family members. He made it clear that he also did not trust Plaintiff. He did not trust her to protect the children; and he actively sought to limit her contact to the children, even so far as making them go to sleep before she came home.

Defendant presented a narrative where he was the primary parent, even when that could not be found to be true based on the parties’ descriptions of their use of the nannies every day. He convinced Plaintiff that she had ADHD, that he was the beleaguered parent, and that he was the glue that held the family together as the only one who did not have something wrong with them. This sort of behavior can only be viewed as a form of abuse; a case where Plaintiff was so worn down that she gave in to Defendant repeatedly even when she questioned some of his judgment choices; a case where she was so worn down, she even followed his belief that she required medications when for years she had held down a high-powered job that would have been difficult for someone with ADHD to have effectively managed.

The Court also made note of Husband's delays from the outset of the litigation by way of, inter alia , "multiple changes of counsel" (totaling four as of October 2020) and terminating his attorney on the eve of the custody trial.

THE PARTIES’ POST-NOTE OF ISSUE MOTIONS AND HUSBAND'S MERITLESS CLAIMS AND MALICIOUS CONDUCT

Discovery on the financial issues was closed on May 5, 2021.

Two months later, on July 6, 2021, Wife filed her Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness together with a motion to preclude Husband from introducing evidence on financial matters for which he failed to produce discovery and to deem certain financial issues resolved in accordance with Wife's claims ("the motion to preclude").

One day later, on July 7, 2021, Justice Sattler held a conference during which she set a return date for the motion to preclude; scheduled the financial trial to commence on February 28, 2022 and continue on several dates in March 2022¹ ; and issued an Order awarding Husband $200,000 "as an advance against his equitable distribution, to be paid directly to his incoming counsel upon [Husband] providing the contact information for counsel to the attorneys for [Wife]."

Husband did not engage a new attorney for the financial trial. Rather, on July 23, 2021, he moved, as "Defendant pro se", pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 202.21 to vacate the Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness upon the ground that Wife failed to produce discovery ("the motion to vacate the Note of Issue").

On September 9, 2021, Husband had the children for his parenting time. He was late for the exchange but did not answer Wife's calls and texts to confirm the children's whereabouts. Concerned, Wife sought the help of the NYPD to locate the children. She called 911 and went to a local New York City Precinct. As a result, the police called Husband and then went to his apartment for a wellness check. Only then did Wife learn that her children were safe.

Sometime in or prior to October 2021, Husband violated the parties’ March 15, 2019 So-Ordered Confidentiality Stipulation ("the Confidentiality Order") by providing reporters and other third-parties with confidential documents and information about Wife's employment with [the investment bank]. The Confidentiality Order (paragraph D therein) defines [the investment bank] information as "all documents and testimony and all information contained therein" related to [the investment bank], and Wife's employment and relationship to [the investment bank].

On October 5, 2021, a journalist emailed Wife, advising that he had been in communication with Husband about this divorce and her relationship with [the investment bank]. The journalist mentioned a 2015 private evaluation report compiled by Wife's supervisors about her performance and asked her pointed questions about her work. The journalist also asked about the September 9, 2021 wellness check, intimating that it undermined the Court's domestic violence finding against Husband in the custody trial. On October 9, 2021, the journalist published an article about these matters based solely upon Husband's allegations and disclosure of confidential information.

At this time, Wife also learned that Husband spoke with a father's rights activist, with whom he also shared the domestic violence finding, his opinion that the finding was false, and his claim of harm due to the September 9, 2021 wellness check. The activist then contacted the Board of Directors of [a not-for-profit organization], on which Wife sits as a member, accusing her of lying about domestic violence and asking the Board to retract an award they recently gave her. Husband had also discussed the children in this litigation with the reporters and third-parties.

Consequently, on October 8 and again on October 29, 2021, Wife moved, by separate Orders to Show Cause, for separate preliminary injunctions, enjoining Husband from further violating the Confidentiality Order and discussing the children in this litigation. Wife demonstrated that she could lose certain restricted stock acquired as a result of her employment, as well as her job itself, by Husband's lies, defamatory statements, and disclosure of confidential information. The Court issued an interim restraining order on Husband ("the preliminary injunction motions").

On October 20, 2021, Ionas Sipsas, Esq. appeared for Husband on a "limited scope representation" solely for the preliminary injunction motions.

Twenty days later, on November 9, 2021, Mr. Sipsas filed an "Amended Notice of Appearance Limited Scope Representation," expanding his representation of Husband to include Wife's motion to preclude and Husband's motion to vacate the Note of Issue (matters relating to the financial trial); Justice Sattler's July 7, 2021 Order awarding Husband attorney's fees; discovery and related...