Maliah-Dupass v. Dupass (2025) — Refined Rules on Disability Pensions, Educational Add-Ons, and Enhanced-Earnings Claims

1. Introduction

Maliah-Dupass v. Dupass, 2025 NY Slip Op 03801, is a Second Department decision arising from a long-running divorce dispute that began in 2012. The former spouses, Sian Maliah-Dupass (plaintiff) and Jahiz N. Dupass (defendant), litigated a host of issues after a non-jury trial: custody of minor children, equitable distribution (including an accidental-disability pension and a professional license), add-on expenses for education and orthodontia, Social Security disability (SSD) credits, and claims for overpayment of maintenance and child support.

The appellate court dismissed the custody appeal as moot regarding the younger son, and otherwise affirmed every challenged Supreme Court determination. While no single issue revolutionizes New York domestic-relations law, the opinion consolidates and clarifies several doctrinal threads:

• How accidental-disability pensions are parsed into distributable and separate portions;
• The limited circumstances in which educational and medical “add-on” expenses become mandatory;
• Why SSD benefits payable to children do not reduce a paying parent’s obligation; and
• The post-Mahoney-Buntzman decline of “enhanced earning capacity” claims for professional degrees/licences when the nontitled spouse cannot show substantial contribution.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Appellate Division held:

1. The appeal from the custody award for the younger son was dismissed as academic (child reached majority).
2. Sole legal custody of the minor daughter to the plaintiff was upheld, relying on best-interest factors and the teenager’s stated preference.
3. The plaintiff is entitled to equitable distribution of the nondisability portion of the defendant’s accidental-disability New York City pension.
4. The Supreme Court correctly declined to compel the plaintiff to pay pro-rata shares of private-school tuition or orthodontia costs.
5. No credit is due the defendant for one-half of SSD benefits paid to the plaintiff on behalf of the children.
6. The defendant failed to prove an entitlement to 35 % of the plaintiff’s dental-hygiene license or any credit for alleged over-payment of maintenance/child support.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Custody Framework
  Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 (1982) & Matter of Julie v. Wills, 73 AD3d 777 — reaffirm that the “totality of circumstances” governs best-interest determinations.
  Joseph P.A. v. Martha A., 237 AD3d 1146 (2023) — listed modern best-interest factors and stressed deference to trial-court credibility findings.
  By citing these, the Second Department signals continuity: unless clear error appears, it will seldom disturb trial-level custody determinations.
• Accidental-Disability Pensions
  Dolan v. Dolan, 78 NY2d 463 (1991) — held that pensions are marital to the extent earned during the marriage.
  Mylett v. Mylett, 163 AD2d 463 (1990) & Linenschmidt v. Linenschmidt, 163 AD3d 950 (2018) — articulated the split-nature analysis (deferred compensation vs. personal-injury component).
  The panel relies on these to affirm that even an accidental-disability pension, often viewed as injury compensation, is partially marital if formulaically tied to salary and service credits accrued during the marriage.
• Educational & Orthodontic Add-Ons
  Sinnott v. Sinnott, 194 AD3d 868 (2021) & Abayomi v. Guevara, 215 AD3d 720 (2023) — empower courts to allocate private-school costs absent “special circumstances.”
  Pilkington v. Pilkington, 185 AD3d 844 (2020) — discretion to deny add-ons where circumstances do not justify them.
  The cited cases collectively confirm that add-ons are not automatic; they turn on best interest, parental finances, and justice.
• SSD Credits
  Matter of Graby v. Graby, 87 NY2d 605 (1996) & Wendel v. Nelson, 116 AD3d 1057 (2014) — treat child SSD benefits as supplements, not offsets.
  The panel simply applies this bright-line rule.
• Enhanced Earning Capacity/Professional Licences
  Lynch v. Lynch, 168 AD3d 700 (2019) & Spinner v. Spinner, 188 AD3d 748 (2020) — require proof of both value and substantial spouse contribution.
  The decision aligns with a statewide trend after 20 years of criticism of the “enhanced earnings” doctrine culminating legislatively in 2016. Although the subject marriage pre-dated the statutory change, the court underscores the high evidentiary burden on the claimant spouse.
• Maintenance & Child Support
  Bari v. Bari, 200 AD3d 835 (2021) & Varnit v. Varnit, 233 AD3d 917 (2024) — reaffirm trial-court discretion and correct application of CSSA formulas.

3.2 Legal Reasoning of the Court

1. Custody — Deference to trial findings, stability of existing arrangement, teenager’s strong preference, and plaintiff’s superior record of co-parenting conduct provided a “sound and substantial basis.”
2. Disability Pension Allocation — The court dissected the pension into two conceptual parts:
   (a) Deferred compensation linked to pre-retirement earnings/service — marital;
   (b) Personal injury replacement income — separate.
   Because actuarial tables tied a large share of the benefit to years of service accrued during the marriage, that portion was divisible.
3. Add-On Expenses — Private-school tuition is discretionary. The defendant, who unilaterally selected the school and paid tuition, could not show that it was (i) mutually agreed, (ii) financially feasible for both parties, or (iii) essential to the children’s welfare. Similar logic applied to orthodontia where documentation was thin and parental agreement absent.
4. SSD Benefits — The statutory scheme intends those payments to supplement children’s resources, not substitute for parental support. Therefore, no “credit” or downward deviation is permissible absent extraordinary circumstances.
5. Enhanced Earnings via Dental-Hygiene License — The defendant offered no vocational-economic valuation expert; more importantly, he failed to prove he contributed significantly (financially or domestically) to the plaintiff’s education. Without evidence of “substantial contribution,” the claim collapses.
6. Over-payment Credits — The trial court’s credibility findings — principally that defendant had under-reported resources and benefited from children residing with plaintiff — defeated his equitable-credit arguments.

3.3 Potential Impact of the Judgment

Though fact-intensive, the holding will likely be cited for several propositions:

• Accidental-disability pensions continue to be split under the Dolan/Mylett formula, reminding public-safety employees that disability status does not automatically shield their pensions from equitable distribution.
• Add-on expenses (Education/Orthodontia) — parties should memorialize agreements in writing; unilateral expenditures risk non-reimbursement.
• SSD credits — the court’s concise reaffirmation bolsters the near-absolute rule that these benefits do not offset support obligations.
• Enhanced-earnings valuation — the decision reinforces the post-2016 trajectory of diminishing such awards and the evidentiary rigor required to obtain them in still-eligible cases.
• Appellate deference to trial courts in divorce matters remains formidable, particularly regarding credibility-based findings.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Accidental-Disability Pension — A retirement benefit awarded to public employees injured on duty. Part is calculated like a normal pension (salary × years of service) and part compensates for the injury. Only the former is “marital property.”
• Enhanced Earning Capacity — The theoretical future income stream attributable to a degree or license earned during marriage; recognized as divisible property until a 2016 statutory overhaul, but still litigated for pre-2016 filings.
• Add-On Expenses — Under the Child Support Standards Act, certain costs (e.g., unreimbursed medical, childcare, education) can be allocated in addition to basic support, but only when reasonable and in the child’s best interest.
• Social Security Disability (SSD) Benefits for Dependents — Money paid directly (often to the custodial parent) on the disabled parent’s work record. Treated as a supplement, not a substitute, for child support.
• Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) — A specialized court order that instructs a pension plan to pay a portion of benefits to a non-employee spouse.

5. Conclusion

Maliah-Dupass v. Dupass underscores key themes in modern New York matrimonial jurisprudence. First, custody appeals will rarely succeed absent manifest error. Second, disability pensions—even those tagged “accidental”—remain subject to equitable distribution for the marital-service component. Third, unilateral educational or medical outlays do not automatically translate into credits or reimbursements. Fourth, SSD benefits belong to the children, not the payor’s offset column. Finally, enhanced-earnings claims face an uphill evidentiary climb, especially in actions commenced before the 2016 legislative amendment. Collectively, the decision provides practitioners with a concise, appellate-level restatement of these doctrines and will likely be a citation staple in future Queens-County and Second-Department filings involving similar fact patterns.