When there is a business, a compensation package, a portfolio, or an inheritance in the marital estate, the fight is rarely about the percentage split. It is about what counts as marital property and what it is actually worth — and those questions are answered in the documents. Kristen does that work herself.
Complicated finances don't make you a complicated person. They just mean the case takes more care.
What I've learned in twenty-five years is that these matters are often won by whoever actually reads the documents — line by line, account by account. That is unglamorous work. It is also the work.
In a typical divorce, both spouses can see the whole marital estate on a single page, and the argument is about how to divide it. That is not what a high-asset case looks like. In a high-asset case the argument happens earlier: before anyone can divide anything, the parties have to agree on what belongs in the pot and what each item is worth. Those two questions — characterization and valuation — routinely account for more money than the ultimate percentage ever will.
New York's equitable distribution statute divides marital property according to what is fair, not what is equal, weighing the factors set out in DRL § 236(B)(5)(d). But the statute only operates on property that has already been classified as marital and assigned a value. A closely held business, an unvested equity grant, a partly commingled inheritance, a pension accrued across the marriage line — each of these requires analysis before the distribution factors have anything to work on.
That analysis is document work. It means reading grant agreements rather than summaries of them, tracing deposits through account histories, reconciling tax returns against reported income, and understanding what a valuation expert actually did before accepting the number at the bottom. Kristen does this work personally, and she is comfortable in the underlying financial material — a comfort that predates her legal career and has been sharpened across two decades of matrimonial practice.
One more thing worth saying plainly: a high-asset divorce does not have to be a scorched-earth divorce. Many of these cases settle, and settle well, precisely because thorough preparation makes the likely outcome clear to both sides. Litigation is the tool when it is needed, not the default.
Your concern is usually continuity — keeping the enterprise intact and free of your former spouse's ongoing involvement. New York's statute recognizes this: DRL § 236(B)(5)(d)(10) directs the court to weigh the economic desirability of retaining a business interest intact and free from claim or interference by the other party. The work is establishing a defensible value and structuring a buyout you can actually fund.
Your concern is visibility. You are entitled to know what the enterprise is worth, what it pays out, and what runs through it. Personal expenses booked to the company, compensation set below market, deferred billing, and inventory timing all suppress apparent value. Finding them takes discovery and a forensic reading of the books — and, where warranted, a forensic accountant retained to do it. More on that below →
New York does not permit contingent fees in divorce cases; matrimonial lawyers bill hourly. Since the 2015 amendments there is a rebuttable presumption that the less-monied spouse is entitled to an award of counsel and expert fees from the monied spouse. If you are the spouse without access to the money, that presumption matters — and it extends to the forensic experts a complex case may require. More on fees →
Not every case involves all of these. Most involve at least three.
Closely held companies, professional practices, and partnership interests have no market price, so value is an opinion supported by methodology. The contested points are the valuation date, the approach used, discounts for lack of marketability or a minority position, and how much of the value reflects the owner's personal reputation and effort rather than the enterprise standing alone. New York has been notably skeptical of double-counting the same income stream as both an asset and a source of support.
Stock options, restricted stock units, deferred compensation, carried interest, and bonus structures are frequently the largest item on the balance sheet. Under DeJesus v. DeJesus, 90 N.Y.2d 643 (1997), equity granted for past work performed during the marriage is generally marital; equity granted to retain the employee for future service generally is not. Unvested grants straddling the commencement date are apportioned by a coverture fraction. The answer lives in the grant agreement and the vesting schedule.
Inheritances, gifts from third parties, pre-marital assets, and personal injury awards are separate property under DRL § 236(B)(1)(d) — but the spouse claiming separate status bears the burden of proving it. Commingling, retitling, and use for a marital purpose can all defeat the claim. Passive appreciation generally stays separate; appreciation driven by either spouse's efforts during the marriage may not. These disputes are won with account records, not assertions.
Defined benefit pensions, 401(k) and 403(b) plans, IRAs, and non-qualified deferred plans each divide differently. The marital portion of a pension is typically calculated under the Majauskas formula, and division usually requires a separate Qualified Domestic Relations Order drafted and entered after judgment. Getting the QDRO wrong — or never entering it — is one of the more expensive unforced errors in matrimonial practice.
Multiple properties, vacation homes, rental and investment real estate, and concentrated securities positions raise questions a single marital residence does not: embedded capital gains, cost basis, carrying costs, mortgage qualification after the split, and the difference between an asset's gross value and what it will actually yield after tax. DRL § 236(B)(5)(d)(11) makes tax consequences an express distribution factor, and in a large estate it is not a footnote.
Both parties file a sworn Statement of Net Worth with backup under 22 NYCRR 202.16(b), and automatic orders restraining transfers take effect when the case begins. Where the disclosure does not reconcile — unexplained transfers, income that does not match lifestyle, a sudden downturn in a business that had been performing — discovery and forensic accounting follow. Wasteful dissipation and transfers made in contemplation of divorce are themselves distribution factors under DRL § 236(B)(5)(d)(12) and (13).
New York calculates child support and spousal maintenance by formula — but only up to an income cap, and those caps adjusted again this year. Effective March 1, 2026, the combined parental income cap under the Child Support Standards Act rose from $183,000 to $193,000, and the income cap applied to the maintenance payor rose from $228,000 to $241,000. Both figures are indexed to the Consumer Price Index and adjust every two years; the next adjustment is due March 1, 2028.
For most families, the cap is close to the whole calculation. For the families this page is written for, it is the beginning. Income above the cap falls outside the formula and into the court's discretion, guided by the statutory factors — the marital standard of living, the children's actual needs, each party's earning capacity and financial resources. Under Cassano v. Cassano, 85 N.Y.2d 649 (1995), a court may extrapolate the statutory percentages to income above the cap, apply the factors instead, or decline to go above the cap at all, provided it articulates its reasoning.
That discretionary zone is where high-income support cases are actually decided, and it rewards evidence over argument: what the family actually spent, what the children's lives actually cost, what the income actually is once compensation structures and business distributions are unpacked.
New York changed course here. DRL § 236(B)(5)(d)(7) provides that the court shall not treat the value of a spouse's enhanced earning capacity arising from a license, degree, celebrity goodwill, or career enhancement as marital property subject to distribution — reversing three decades of practice under O'Brien. The court must still consider a spouse's direct and indirect contributions to the development of that earning capacity when distributing the marital property that does exist. If you were told years ago that you had a claim on your spouse's professional license, that advice is out of date.
Some cases are decided by argument. These are decided by evidence — and sometimes the evidence has to be built.
Kristen reviews the financial disclosure herself, and in most cases that is enough to know whether the picture holds together. Statements reconcile against tax returns, income matches lifestyle, business distributions track the K-1s. When they do, the case proceeds on the documents.
When they don't — when it is apparent or reasonably likely that the other side is concealing assets, understating income, or mischaracterizing marital property as separate — Kristen brings in forensic accountants and valuation experts. Not a name pulled from a list: professionals she has worked with over years of matrimonial litigation, chosen for the specific problem in front of her. The accountant who unwinds a closely held business is not necessarily the one who reconstructs unreported cash income or values a partnership interest.
Retaining an expert is a decision, not a reflex. It costs money, and in a case where the disclosure is complete and the assets are transparent, it adds expense without adding information. Kristen will tell you candidly which situation you are in. But where the work is warranted, it should be done properly and early — a forensic engagement started late, after records have aged and accounts have closed, is a harder and more expensive engagement.
The expert's role does not end with a report. Findings have to survive cross-examination, and a valuation opinion offered by the other side has to be tested by someone who understands the methodology well enough to find where it bends. Kristen works closely with her experts through that process rather than handing off the financial issues and waiting for a conclusion.
This is the first question most clients ask, and the answer is often better than expected. New York's 2015 amendments created a rebuttable presumption that the less-monied spouse is entitled to an award of counsel and expert fees from the monied spouse. A forensic engagement is frequently within reach for the spouse who does not control the finances — which is precisely the spouse who most often needs one. Where the presumption applies, Kristen applies for those fees early rather than at the end of the case.
Cash receipts that never reach the deposit record, revenue recognized late, related-party transactions, and personal expenses run through a business as deductions. A lifestyle analysis compares what a household actually spent against what the returns say it earned.
Accounts not listed on the Statement of Net Worth, transfers to family members or new entities, loans to insiders that were never meant to be repaid, and the timing of movements relative to the commencement date.
Whether an inheritance stayed separate, whether a pre-marital account was commingled beyond recovery, and whether appreciation was passive or driven by a spouse's efforts. This is reconstruction work through account histories, often across many years.
Establishing a defensible value for a business or partnership interest — and, just as often, examining the opposing expert's methodology, valuation date, discounts, and normalization adjustments for the assumptions doing the real work.
In cases with substantial assets, the thought occurs to people — move something, delay a bonus, understate a business. Set the formal consequences aside; the practical problem is the harder one. Discovery in a matrimonial action reaches bank records, brokerage statements, business books, and tax returns. Those records have to agree with one another, with the disclosure that was filed, and with how the household visibly lived. Making four independent sets of records tell the same false story is considerably more difficult than it looks, and the places where they diverge are exactly what a forensic accountant is retained to find.
When concealment surfaces — and in a well-prepared case it usually does — the consequence is rarely dramatic. It is quieter and more expensive than that. The court's assessment of your credibility carries into every discretionary question left in the case: distribution percentages, support above the cap, counsel fee awards, and, where children are involved, matters far more important than money. Judges do not announce that they stopped believing you. They simply resolve the close calls the other way, and there are a great many close calls. A defensible position honestly presented is worth considerably more than a clever one.
The same holds in reverse. If you suspect the disclosure you have received is incomplete, say so early. Tracing gets harder as records age and accounts close.
Browde Law represents clients in high-asset matrimonial matters in the Supreme Courts of the lower Hudson Valley and all five boroughs of New York City. The Chappaqua office is convenient to much of northern and central Westchester, and consultations by phone or video are available for clients elsewhere in the practice area.
Browde Law practices exclusively in New York State courts. Where a case involves assets, entities, or proceedings in another jurisdiction, Kristen works alongside counsel admitted there.
There is no statutory threshold. What changes is the nature of the dispute. In most divorces the assets are a house, a couple of retirement accounts, and some savings, and the argument is about how to divide them. Where there is a closely held business, executive compensation, an inheritance that was partly commingled, or a substantial investment portfolio, the argument moves earlier in the analysis: what is marital property in the first place, and what is it worth. Those two questions usually matter far more to the outcome than the percentage split.
A business is rarely divided in the sense of being cut in half. More often it is valued, and the non-titled spouse receives a distributive award reflecting an equitable share of the marital portion of that value, paid in cash or offset against other assets. The contested issues are the valuation date, the valuation methodology, the discounts applied for lack of marketability or a minority interest, and how much of the value is attributable to the owner's personal efforts rather than the enterprise itself.
Often, at least in part. Under DeJesus v. DeJesus, 90 N.Y.2d 643 (1997), New York courts distinguish between equity granted as compensation for past work performed during the marriage and equity granted as an incentive for future service. Grants tied to past performance are generally marital; grants that function as a retention incentive for post-commencement work generally are not. Unvested awards straddling the commencement date are typically apportioned using a time-based coverture fraction. This requires reading the actual grant agreements and vesting schedules — not just the year-end statement.
It can, but the burden of proving it falls on the spouse claiming it. Property acquired by inheritance or by gift from someone other than the spouse is separate property under DRL § 236(B)(1)(d). That protection can be lost through commingling, retitling into joint names, or use for a marital purpose such as a down payment on the marital residence. Passive appreciation on separate property generally remains separate; appreciation attributable to the efforts of either spouse during the marriage may be marital. Tracing the money through account records is the work that decides these disputes.
The statutory formulas apply only up to an income cap, and those caps adjusted on March 1, 2026. The combined parental income cap under the Child Support Standards Act rose from $183,000 to $193,000, and the maintenance payor income cap rose from $228,000 to $241,000. Above the cap the court has discretion. Under Cassano v. Cassano, 85 N.Y.2d 649 (1995), courts may extrapolate the statutory percentages to income above the cap, apply the statutory factors instead, or stop at the cap. In genuinely high-income cases this discretionary zone — not the formula — is where the money is.
New York provides substantial tools. Both parties must file a sworn Statement of Net Worth with supporting documentation under 22 NYCRR 202.16(b). Automatic orders take effect at the start of the case and restrain transferring, selling, encumbering, or dissipating assets outside the ordinary course. Discovery reaches bank, brokerage, and business records. Where the picture still does not reconcile, Kristen brings in a forensic accountant to reconstruct it — and under the 2015 fee provisions, the cost of that expert is frequently recoverable from the monied spouse. Wasteful dissipation and transfers made in contemplation of divorce are themselves factors the court weighs in distribution under DRL § 236(B)(5)(d)(12) and (13).
The first conversation is confidential and carries no obligation. You'll speak with Kristen directly — not a receptionist or intake coordinator. If it would help to have documents in front of you, bring them.
Contact Kristen → Call (914) 266-9222