Spousal Support New York

Thanks for visiting Spodek Law Group – managed by Todd Spodek, a second-generation law firm with over 40 years of combined experience in New York matrimonial law. Spousal support (called maintenance here, alimony elsewhere) means one spouse pays the other money during and after divorce. It’s not child support – that’s separate. The idea is to compensate for economic disparities between spouses so both can maintain reasonably comparable standards of living post-divorce. In theory it’s gender-neutral. In practice it usually means husbands paying wives, though that’s changing.

New York uses a formula to calculate support – caps at $203,000 of the payor’s income, plugs in both spouses’ earnings, produces a dollar amount. Sounds objective. Except judges deviate constantly, parties manipulate income figures to game the calculation, and the formula doesn’t account for second families, new partners’ incomes, or cost-of-living variations. At Spodek Law Group – we know the formula is a starting point, not an answer.

The Formula Creates False Precision

Domestic Relations Law 236(B)(6) sets the formula. For the higher-earning spouse (payor), take 30% of their income up to $203,000, subtract 20% of the lower-earning spouse’s (payee’s) income. That’s guideline amount #1. Guideline amount #2: take 40% of combined income up to $406,000, subtract payee’s income. Court awards the lower of the two.

This produces a number, but that number assumes both spouses live in similar circumstances, have no other dependents, and earn exactly what they report. Income manipulation happens constantly. Payor wants to show lower income – they defer bonuses, take compensation as non-taxable benefits, have their business pay personal expenses so reported income stays low. Payee wants to show lower income to maximize what they receive – works part-time when capable of full-time employment, declines higher-paying jobs, claims health issues prevent earning more. Courts impute income when spouses voluntarily suppress earnings, but proving voluntary underemployment requires evidence the other spouse often can’t obtain.

The $203,000 cap means high earners pay based on only a portion of their income. If payor earns $500,000 and payee earns $50,000, formula calculates based on $203,000 and $50,000, ignoring the additional $297,000. Courts can award additional amounts above the guideline, but there’s no formula for that – pure judicial discretion, reintroducing the unpredictability the formula was supposed to eliminate.

Duration Depends on Marriage Length

Temporary (pendente lite) maintenance applies during divorce proceedings – maintains the status quo while litigation drags on for 12-18 months. Post-divorce maintenance applies after judgment, for durations based on marriage length: 15-30% of marriage length for marriages under 15 years, 30-40% for 15-20 years, 35-50% for over 20 years. These are ranges, not mandatory terms. A ten-year marriage could result in 1.5 years of support or 3 years, depending on which factors the judge emphasizes.

Payor argues for the low end (marriage was short, payee is employable, has assets). Payee argues for the high end (sacrificed career, needs time to retrain, health issues limiting employment). Judges split the difference, awarding something in the middle without clear explanation of why that specific duration was chosen.

Non-Durational Support for Long Marriages

Marriages of 20+ years can result in non-durational (indefinite) maintenance – payments continue until the payee dies, remarries, or the payor successfully moves to modify based on changed circumstances. After decades of marriage, particularly when one spouse sacrificed career advancement to support the other’s career or raise children, time-limited support doesn’t adequately compensate for the economic disadvantage. Non-durational maintenance sounds harsh to payors – you’re paying your ex-spouse indefinitely even after they’ve had years to become self-supporting. But someone who hasn’t worked in 25 years because they managed the household can’t reasonably be expected to become self-sufficient within 5-10 years. Their earning capacity was permanently impaired by the marital arrangement both spouses benefited from.

Payors challenge this by showing the payee could have retrained or obtained employment but chose not to, demonstrating they’re voluntarily remaining unemployed. Requires proof the payee turned down jobs, didn’t pursue training opportunities, or has skills they’re not using. Without that proof, courts continue payments indefinitely.

When Courts Deviate

The formula is “presumptive,” not mandatory. Courts deviate based on statutory factors – age and health, earning capacity, duration of marriage, standard of living during marriage, career sacrifices for the family, presence of children, wasteful dissipation of assets, domestic violence, and any other factor the court finds just and proper. These factors give judges wide discretion. Payee has serious health issues requiring expensive treatment? Judges award more than the formula. Payor remarried and is supporting a second family? Might award less to account for reduced available income. Marriage involved domestic violence by the payor? Judges award at the high end as partial compensation. Payee dissipated marital assets gambling? Award less because the payee wasted what could have supported them.

Same facts, different judges, vastly different outcomes because judges weight statutory factors differently. One emphasizes that the payee sacrificed career for the marriage and awards high support for long duration. Another emphasizes that the payee is employable now and awards low support for short duration. The formula provides a starting point, but litigation over deviation factors consumes the same attorney time and fees that occurred before formulas existed.

Tax Treatment Changed in 2019

Before 2019, maintenance was tax-deductible for the payor and taxable income for the payee. Created tax efficiency – the payor (higher bracket) deducted payments, while the payee (lower bracket) paid tax at their lower rate. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act eliminated the deduction for divorces finalized after December 31, 2018. No longer deductible for payors or taxable for payees. This increased the after-tax cost for payors – they now pay from post-tax dollars. Benefited payees – they receive it tax-free. But reduced the overall value of agreements because there’s no longer tax arbitrage between spouses’ different brackets. Payors now demand lower gross amounts because they can’t deduct payments. Payees accept lower gross amounts because they don’t pay tax on what they receive.

Modification and Enforcement

Orders can be modified if circumstances substantially change. Payor loses job or takes significant pay cut – grounds for reduction or suspension. Payee starts cohabiting with a new partner who supports them financially – grounds for reduction or termination. Payee remarries – automatic termination. But proving substantial change is difficult, and courts hesitate to modify frequently because it creates instability and endless relitigation.

Cohabitation is the most-litigated modification ground. Payor discovers payee’s been living with a romantic partner for months or years, argues the partner provides financial support reducing payee’s need. Payee claims the cohabitation is non-financial, the partner pays their own expenses but doesn’t support them, the relationship might end soon. Courts evaluate whether the cohabitation is tantamount to an economic partnership – requires intrusive inquiry into the payee’s romantic relationship, household finances, future intentions. Some payees hide cohabitation to avoid modification. They maintain separate residences on paper while actually living with partners, or structure the relationship to avoid appearing as economic partners. Payors hire investigators to document cohabitation through surveillance, utility records, neighbors’ testimony.

When payors don’t pay, payees enforce through contempt proceedings. Court orders the payor to show cause why they shouldn’t be held in contempt. If the payor doesn’t have a good excuse (lost their job isn’t enough – need to show they exhausted all options including selling assets, borrowing), court can impose sanctions including jail time. Wage garnishment is the other mechanism – courts order the payor’s employer to withhold payments directly from paychecks. Works when the payor is a W-2 employee. Self-employed payors or those paid in cash evade garnishment by not reporting income accurately.

Payors who willfully refuse to pay face escalating consequences: contempt orders, wage garnishment, license suspension, incarceration. Payors who genuinely can’t pay should move to modify rather than simply stopping payment. Stopping payment without court permission creates arrears that accumulate interest and become enforceable through contempt even if the payor later proves inability to pay – courts hold that unilateral non-payment isn’t allowed even when circumstances would’ve supported modification if properly requested. We’re available 24/7. Call us.