Where Did All That Money Come From?

The New York State judiciary has been perceived by many as viewing itself above the need to share in the pain of the current budgetary crisis. Judges whine that their salaries are far below what they could earn in private law practice, never mind that they chose to run for the seat on the bench in the first place. The New York Court of Appeals is now completing, if it has not already completed, construction of luxury apartments for its judges to use while up in Albany. Many court personnel are where they are on account of political patronage, which wouldn't be so bad if so many of them were not so insolent towards the attorneys and members of the public whose circumstances compel dealings with the court system. And Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman did a lot of pouting and pissing and moaning before he grudgingly conceded the need for the judiciary to make some painful cuts in its budget.

But there is at least one judge who understands his duty to stand watch over the public purse. Justice Robert A. Ross, of the Nassau County Supreme Court (don't be too impressed by the "Supreme" terminology; the county Supreme Courts in New York are the lowest courts of general jurisdiction), has before him the matrimonial action of Felice Cohen against Eyal Cohen. In the course of the proceedings, Eyal had asserted that his income was approximately $10,000 per year and that he lived rent-free on Mom & Dad's dime, and, pleading poverty, was assigned counsel (i.e., on the taxpayers' dime).

Eyal apparently had been less than fully cooperative with the Court's directives, and a contempt hearing (not the first one) had been scheduled. Shortly before the scheduled contempt hearing, Felice and Eyal reached a settlement whereby Eyal would pay Felice a settlement of $45,000.

The numbers did not add up when Justice Ross crunched them. How would a person whose income is only $45,000 and who has few assets come up with $45,000? It is one thing to hide assets and income from your soon-to-be-ex spouse. But Eyal hid the assets and income from the Court, and, based upon Eyal's representations, the Court upheld Eyal's Constitutional right to counsel by dipping into the public fisc to engage an attorney for Eyal.

Judge Ross has now called upon Eyal to attend a hearing to explain the apparent discrepancy. In his order, the Judge gives Eyal the opportunity to file an amended Statement of Net Worth, and, to spare Felice's purse, has dispensed with the need for her to attend the hearing. Unless Eyal has a good and credible and documentable explanation, it seems that Judge Ross intends to make Eyal reimburse the State for paying the assigned counsel. And if Eyal did make a major misrepresentation to the Court, then his proper and honest filing of an amended Statement of New Worth would, in all likelihood, give Judge Ross a basis for not sending Eyal to the slammer.

After 20-something years, my own marriage is in no danger of going before Judge Ross or any of his colleagues on the bench. This good investment in my marriage has saved my wife and I lots of money that otherwise would go to the divorce lawyers. It also has saved the taxpayers of New York the expense of having another matrimonial action work its slow and convoluted way through the judicial system.

Til Divorce Do You Part

My own marriage has been going strong for 20+ years, and when the nearly 3-year courtship period is tacked on, my wife and I are somewhat closer to 30 than to 20. We consider ourselves to be very blessed and fortunate, but we have had to work very diligently to make it work.

Within our socioreligious circle, the divorce rate seems to be on the increase. In a conversation this past Shabbat, my wife and I counted three children of our contemporaries, whose weddings we attended, who are now divorced. Our son, who now is living out of the house in his apartment (with a roommate), will likely be in the marriage market in the relatively near future.

By all indications, the divorce rate is on the increase, in all population sectors. And regardless of how strong one thinks his or her marriage may be, anyone who claims to not be at least somewhat frightened by this rising divorce trend is not being totally honest.

Divorce has a way of messing up and complicating all aspects of life. The very first Slip Opinion issued by the New York State Unified Court System in Calendar Year 2011 is just one example of this. The case is Simkin v. Blank, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 00001. Here, a divorce has further complicated some of the damage done by Bernie Madoff.

I don't have any particularly useful answers to the divorce crisis. But my wife and I at least are doing our part by staying together, resolving the problems that continually arise between us, and striving towards compatible life goals. The fact that we love one another is immaterial, but it certainly makes it all far, far more enjoyable.

There is (1) a dissenting opinion in this Appellate Division decision; and (2) it reverses the decision of the trial court. On those two grounds, the case may be appealed to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, the highest Court in the State. Given the dollar value involved, such an appeal is more likely than not.

Ah, the things I am missing by staying married (and by not having invested my money with Bernard Madoff).