What did the court decide about spousal maintenance?

The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision not to award the husband spousal maintenance, finding the trial court properly considered the statutory guidelines and other relevant factors.

Why were the counsel fees vacated?

The counsel-fee award was vacated because the trial court did not provide the written findings and reasons required by rule 22 NYCRR 130-1.2 when awarding fees or sanctions.

Who is affected by this decision?

The primary parties affected are the husband (appellant) and the wife (respondent); the husband remains without post-divorce maintenance and the wife's counsel-fee award is undone pending further proceedings.

Can this decision be appealed further?

Yes; the appellant could seek permission to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, subject to that court's procedures and discretion.

Dewald v. Dewald

Docket Index No. 365136/23|Appeal No. 6412|Case No. 2025-03454|

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

FamilyAffirmed in Part, Reversed in Part

Filed: Apr 21, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Family
Disposition: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02370
Docket numbers: Index No365136/23Appeal No6412Case No2025-03454

Appeal from a post-trial Supreme Court order in a matrimonial action denying husband spousal maintenance and awarding counsel fees to the wife.

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department reviewed an appeal by husband Jerome Dewald from a post-trial family court order that denied him spousal maintenance and awarded the wife $5,500 in counsel fees. The appellate court affirmed the denial of maintenance, finding the trial court permissibly deviated from statutory guidelines after considering factors such as the husband’s age, assets, prior fraud conviction, pendente lite payments, and the short time the parties lived together. However, the court vacated the counsel-fee award because the trial court failed to provide the written findings and reasons required by court rules before imposing such fees.

Issues Decided

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in declining to award post-divorce spousal maintenance to the husband despite the statutory guideline calculation.
Whether the trial court adequately considered the statutory factors that could justify deviating from the maintenance guidelines.
Whether the trial court satisfied 22 NYCRR 130-1.2's procedural requirements when awarding counsel fees.

Court's Reasoning

The appellate court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deviating from the statutory maintenance guidelines because it computed the presumptive amount and duration, then considered relevant factors—including the husband's age, assets, prior fraud conviction, prior pendente lite payments, and the short duration of cohabitation—which supported denying maintenance. The court credited the trial judge's adverse credibility findings about the husband, which are given deference on appeal. The counsel-fee award was vacated because the trial court failed to issue the required written decision describing the conduct found frivolous and explaining why the fee amount was appropriate under 22 NYCRR 130-1.2.

Authorities Cited

Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(6)(e)(1)
22 NYCRR 130-1.2
Van Boxtel v Van Boxtel233 AD3d 463 (1st Dept 2024)
Gordon Group Invs., LLC v Kugler127 AD3d 592 (1st Dept 2015)
Fishman v Fishman244 AD3d 526 (1st Dept 2025)

Parties

Respondent: Kristina Y. Dewald
Appellant: Jerome W. Dewald
Judge: Jeffrey H. Pearlman
Attorney: Lloyd C. Rosen

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-21
Supreme Court order entered: 2025-04-07

What You Should Do Next

1
Trial court must revisit counsel-fee award
On remand, the Supreme Court should either provide the written findings and reasons required by 22 NYCRR 130-1.2 to support a counsel-fee award or deny counsel fees if it cannot do so.
2
Consider seeking further appellate review
If a party is dissatisfied with the Appellate Division's partial vacatur or affirmance, they may consider applying for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.
3
Consult counsel regarding financial evidence
The husband should consult his attorney about presenting stronger, credible financial evidence on remand if he seeks reconsideration of maintenance or other financial relief.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide about spousal maintenance?: The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision not to award the husband spousal maintenance, finding the trial court properly considered the statutory guidelines and other relevant factors.
Why were the counsel fees vacated?: The counsel-fee award was vacated because the trial court did not provide the written findings and reasons required by rule 22 NYCRR 130-1.2 when awarding fees or sanctions.
Who is affected by this decision?: The primary parties affected are the husband (appellant) and the wife (respondent); the husband remains without post-divorce maintenance and the wife's counsel-fee award is undone pending further proceedings.
Can this decision be appealed further?: Yes; the appellant could seek permission to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, subject to that court's procedures and discretion.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Dewald v Dewald - 2026 NY Slip Op 02370

Dewald v Dewald

2026 NY Slip Op 02370

April 21, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

Kristina Y. Dewald, Respondent,

Jerome W. Dewald, Appellant.

Decided and Entered: April 21, 2026

Index No. 365136/23|Appeal No. 6412|Case No. 2025-03454|

Before: Renwick, P.J., Friedman, Gesmer, Pitt-Burke, Hagler, JJ.

Jerome W. Dewald, appellant pro se.

Wisselman Harounian Family Law, Carle Place (Lloyd C. Rosen of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey H. Pearlman, J.), entered April 7, 2025, which, after a trial, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, declined to award defendant husband spousal maintenance and ordered him to pay plaintiff wife $5,500 in counsel fees in accordance with 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the counsel fee award, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The husband failed to establish that Supreme Court abused its discretion in deviating from the statutory guidelines to determine that he was not entitled to an award of post-divorce maintenance (
see Van Boxtel v Van Boxtel
, 233 AD3d 463, 463 [1st Dept 2024];
Rennock v Rennock
, 203 AD3d 675 [1st Dept 2022]). After Supreme Court computed the presumptive amount and duration of maintenance under the guidelines set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(6)(e)(1), it considered the factors that warranted a deviation from the statutory formulas. These factors included but were not limited to the husband's age and assets, as well as his prior criminal conviction for fraud; the maintenance that the wife had already paid pendente lite; and the fact that the parties had spent time living apart during their relatively short marriage. Consideration of these factors provided a sufficient basis for the court's decision not to award maintenance to the husband. In addition, although the husband asserts that the court overlooked Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(6) factors that it was required to consider — for example, the large disparity in the parties' ages and their standard of living during the marriage — the record makes clear that the court did, in fact, consider those factors. Contrary to the husband's assertion otherwise, any factual errors made by the court in its assessment are largely immaterial and do not change the analysis.

We also reject the husband's assertions that he lacks assets after investing all his money in the marriage and the parties' lifestyle, and that his age prevents him from rebuilding financial security. The husband made these same arguments before Supreme Court, which properly rejected them, as it was not required to rely solely on his representations of his financial status (
see

Warshaw v Warshaw
, 173 AD3d 582, 583 [1st Dept 2019]). The court also noted that it did not find the husband's testimony to be credible, and this finding is entitled to great deference (
Fishman v Fishman
, 244 AD3d 526, 527-528 [1st Dept 2025];
Matter of Anthony L. v Bernadette R.
, 193 AD3d 510, 511 [1st Dept 2021]).

However, the award of counsel fees requires vacatur, as the court did not satisfy the procedural requirements of 22 NYCRR 130-1.2. Under that section, a court may award costs or impose sanctions "only upon a written decision setting forth the conduct on which the award or imposition is based, the reasons why the court found the conduct to be frivolous, and the reasons why the court found the amount awarded or imposed to be appropriate." Here, the court did not set forth the conduct it found to be frivolous, nor did it provide the reason for its decision to impose counsel fees (
Gordon Group Invs., LLC v Kugler
, 127 AD3d 592, 595 [1st Dept 2015]).

We have considered the husband's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 21, 2026