Divorce Attorney Brooklyn Property Division and Custody Case

During the initial consultation, the divorce attorney Brooklyn team explained the available divorce pathways under New York law, including contested litigation and fault based considerations where relevant to credibility and equities. 

Particular emphasis was placed on equitable distribution principles and the distinction between titled ownership and marital property. 

The client was advised that even without independent income, long term household management and child rearing could constitute substantial marital contribution.

The client was educated on her right to seek equitable distribution of all marital assets accumulated during the marriage, regardless of whose name appeared on financial accounts or real estate titles. 

The divorce attorney Brooklyn team assessed the marital estate, which included real property, investment assets, and accumulated savings controlled primarily by the spouse. 

From the outset, the strategy focused on establishing a strong evidentiary record of contribution and dependency.

Evidence demonstrated that the client had exited the workforce early in the marriage to assume full responsibility for household management and raising three children. 

Despite repeated relocations driven by the spouse’s career, the client independently maintained family stability and continuity of care. 

The divorce attorney Brooklyn team framed these facts as direct contributions to the spouse’s earning capacity and asset accumulation over a seventeen year marriage.

The divorce attorney Brooklyn also advanced a custody strategy grounded in the children’s best interests. Evidence showed that the client had been the primary caregiver throughout the marriage, while the spouse’s involvement was limited and largely financial. 

The attorney demonstrated that the spouse’s rigid financial control adversely affected the children’s education, clothing, and daily needs, undermining claims of parental fitness for primary custody.

The spouse provided a monthly household allowance that was insufficient to meet the needs of a five member family. Educational expenses were routinely denied, and basic necessities for the children often required financial assistance from the client’s extended family. 

The divorce attorney Brooklyn team presented this pattern as evidence of unreasonable financial control rather than responsible budgeting.

New York courts consider each parent’s ability to meet the children’s physical, emotional, and developmental needs. 

The attorney argued that financial austerity imposed at the expense of education and well being reflected poor judgment inconsistent with custodial responsibility.

This framing reinforced the client’s position as the more suitable custodial parent.