“Beyond 50-50” – DeCrescenzo v Suslak (2025) and the Reinforced Discretion of New York Courts in Equitable Distribution, Income Imputation, and Contempt Findings

1. Introduction

In DeCrescenzo v Suslak, 238 A.D.3d 1406 (3d Dep’t 2025), the Appellate Division, Third Department, was presented with an appeal from a contentious, high-asset divorce involving a surgeon-husband and a part-time physical therapist-wife. While many divorce decisions analyze similar themes—property division, maintenance, child support, and contempt—the Third Department crystallised several practical rules that will guide trial courts in future matrimonial litigation.

The central issues were:

Whether Supreme Court erred in awarding each party 100 % of the equity in the residence that party preferred, resulting in a 71/29 split of total real-property equity.
Whether the court was required to impute a six-figure income to the wife despite her part-time employment and caretaker role.
The propriety of maintenance, child support, and ancillary directives (life-insurance security, extracurricular add-ons, counsel fees).
The sustainability of five civil-contempt findings levied against the husband.

On appeal, the Third Department affirmed most of Supreme Court’s determinations while trimming two contempt findings and mandating a pro-rata allocation of child medical-insurance costs. The decision reinforces the wide berth given to trial judges in fashioning equitable (not necessarily equal) awards and in deciding whether, and how much, income to impute to a lower-earning spouse.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Equitable Distribution: Each party received the equity in the real property he or she was awarded; no equalisation payment was ordered. Resultant split: wife 71 %, husband 29 %. The Third Department confirmed that “no 50-50 rule applies item-by-item.”
Maintenance: $5,000 per month for 40.5 months (consisting of presumptive formula plus an upward deviation) upheld.
Child Support: Upward calculation on combined income of $635,000 affirmed, save that wife must pay her pro-rata share of children’s health-insurance premiums.
Imputation of Income: Court properly declined to impute full-time wages or speculative investment income to the wife.
Contempt: Three of five contempt findings sustained; two vacated for want of an operative order at the time of the acts.
Life-Insurance Security, Fees, and Other Relief: $1 million declining-term policy and $100,000 counsel-fee award sustained.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The panel leaned heavily on a constellation of earlier decisions, weaving them into a coherent reaffirmation of trial-court discretion:

Arvantides v Arvantides, 64 N.Y.2d 1033 (1985) – bedrock authority that equitable distribution is not a mechanical 50-50 exercise. DeCrescenzo extends the principle by blessing a 71/29 real-estate split.
Breen v Breen, 222 A.D.3d 1202 (3d Dep’t 2023) – reiterates broad discretion on property division; cited to justify refusal to reimburse the husband for carrying costs.
Belkhir v Amrane-Belkhir, 118 A.D.3d 1396 (4th Dep’t 2014) – sets forth the “50 % credit” rule for paying marital debt post-commencement; here, it was consciously not applied.
Hammack v Hammack, 20 A.D.3d 700 (3d Dep’t 2005) – supports discretion to not impute income where party’s employment status benefits the children.
El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d 19 (2015) – defines elements of civil contempt; used to overturn two findings that lacked an operative order.
Numerous guideline cases such as Louie v Louie, Harris v Schreibman, and Hartog v Hartog guided the maintenance and support analysis.

3.2 Legal Reasoning of the Court

Equitable Distribution
The court evaluated the statutory factors of Domestic Relations Law §236(B)(5)(d), weighing (a) parties’ future economic circumstances, (b) vastly disparate earned income (≈$950k vs. $12k), (c) wife’s continued primary-care role, and (d) the aggregate asset mix, including a distributive share in the husband’s lucrative medical practice. Concluding that awarding each spouse the residence he or she occupied was the most practical solution, the court deemed an equalisation credit unnecessary and explicitly invoked Arvantides.
Imputation of Income
Rejecting the husband’s expert, the court credited the wife’s testimony that full-time employment was incompatible with her childcare obligations and that no comparably paid local jobs were proven to exist. Citing Carney, Hughes, and Remsen, the court noted that imputation is discretionary, not mandatory. Speculative investment returns fared no better under Tuchman and Reynolds.
Maintenance & Child Support
After computing presumptive maintenance, the court exercised a modest upward deviation under DRL §236(B)(6)(e)(1), relying on lifestyle during marriage, health-insurance loss, and economic disparity. For child support, the court applied the CSSA to $635,000 of combined income, well above the statutory cap, but justified by the children’s accustomed “more-than-modest” lifestyle (Muok; Moffre).
Contempt Findings
Two findings failed the “clear and unequivocal order” element; three survived because the orders were in place, the husband knew of them, and the wife suffered prejudice.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

The ruling is poised to influence matrimonial practice in three principal ways:

Deepened Deference on Unequal Asset Splits. Courts now have explicit appellate blessing for dramatic deviations from parity where facts warrant.
Heightened Standard for Income Imputation. Litigants seeking imputation against a caregiving spouse must marshal concrete, local employment data; generalized expert projections may be discarded.
Clarification of Contempt Requirements. Lawyers will be more vigilant to ensure an operative, served order exists before alleging contempt. Equally, parties who ignore clear orders will have little refuge.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Equitable Distribution vs. Equal Distribution: “Equitable” means fair; it may—but need not—equal 50 %. Courts consider 14 statutory factors in DRL §236(B)(5)(d).
Imputation of Income: A court may assign (“impute”) earnings to a party based on capacity rather than actual wages. It requires evidence of ability, opportunity, and often an improper reduction of income.
Statutory Automatic Orders: On filing for divorce, parties are automatically barred from transferring assets, altering insurance, etc. Violation can trigger contempt if the orders have been served.
Civil Contempt: A coercive sanction to compel compliance or compensate the aggrieved; elements are (1) clear order, (2) knowledge, (3) disobedience, and (4) prejudice.
Presumptive Maintenance Formula: DRL §236(B)(6) provides a mathematical starting point, subject to upward or downward deviation after considering 13 statutory factors.

5. Conclusion

DeCrescenzo v Suslak fortifies three pillars of New York matrimonial law: (1) equitable distribution is flexible and fact-sensitive, (2) income imputation remains a discretionary—not obligatory—tool, especially where a spouse’s caregiving role is bona fide, and (3) contempt still hinges on the presence of a clear, operative order. Taken together, the decision offers a blueprint for trial courts navigating high-asset divorces and signals to practitioners that success on appeal will hinge on demonstrating concrete errors, not merely inequitable outcomes.