NY's new no-fault divorce law both praised, panned

When Gov. David A. Paterson signed no-fault divorce into law last week, he ended decades of legislative contention and New York's status as the sole state without it.

The law was met with applause, but also continuing bitter opposition by those who feel it will hurt spouses who hadn't agreed to divorce.

"It's about time that New York has joined the rest of the union in recognizing a person's right to not remain married to someone they don't want to be with," said Lee Rosenberg, a Garden City matrimonial lawyer and vice chairman of the Nassau County Bar Association matrimonial committee.

But Kim Lurie of Merrick, who heads the advocacy group The Alliance to Restore Integrity in Divorce, said the new law would result in harm - including to those with pre-existing health conditions who no longer would be covered under a spouse's insurance.

"If you have a pre-existing condition, good luck finding insurance," she said. "I believe someone should have grounds to get a divorce, not someone walking in saying, 'I don't like you today, we're getting a divorce,' then walking out with the health insurance." (However, a judge can order a spouse to pay for continued coverage to prevent any lapse in insurance.)

The key provision of the new law is an additional ground for divorce: without having to assign blame, or fault, one partner must swear in an affidavit that the marriage has been broken down irretrievably for at least six months.

Under the old law, the grounds were solely adultery, forms of abandonment, cruel and inhuman treatment, imprisonment of at least three years or a year's separation.

SEE PHOTOSRecent celebrity splits

Contested grounds would have to be litigated at trial. Couples often lied about grounds simply to get the divorce, lawyers said.

Also enacted were provisions to protect the less-moneyed spouse in divorce. Those new guidelines for temporary support during the divorce and upfront attorney fees "will even out the financial playing field in court," said Great Neck matrimonial lawyer Jacqueline Harounian.

Rosenberg said the new statutes, especially those concerning maintenance and fees, almost certainly would draw legal challenges.

Some attorneys have suggested a spouse could even contest that a marriage was "irretrievably" broken. But Rosenberg said the statute only requires one spouse to swear that it had, and did not require proof. "In my opinion, those arguments will fall on deaf ears," he said.

Philip Verini, 52, of Levittown, said that after he filed for divorce from his wife, she contested it. He believes that no-fault divorce would have cut a two-year legal fight in half and saved his retirement funds. The divorce came through a year ago, he said, when his wife agreed to a financial settlement the day before going to trial. His ex-wife said she preferred not to comment.

"It ended up costing us both a ton in attorney fees; it was very hard on the kids," he said. "If it were no-fault, it probably would have been over in six, or eight months, but it dragged on for just about two years."

But Stephanie Klein, 59, now of Long Beach, said she contested her divorce, awarded in 2006 after 18 years of marriage, because as a Roman Catholic she didn't believe in divorce and wanted to keep the marriage together.

Even though her ex-husband won the divorce after a trial, she believes contesting it resulted in better financial terms than she was initially offered. She has some spousal support and medical insurance until age 65.

"You're dismissing me as a wife, mother, person and the worth of what I did all those years," she said. "I held my head up high and said I deserved that money."

Her ex-husband, Lawrence Klein, 58, of Bellmore, said the legal process over grounds may be easier under no-fault, but, he said, "I think the overall process is still going to be difficult, depending on the couple, and if they are able to come to an agreement on the assets."