Font Size: 
Former Attorney's 'Sporadic' Economic Support Results in Small Share of Marital Property
New York Law Journal
April 30, 2009
A disbarred attorney who provided "limited, sporadic, unreliable and inconsistent" support to the "economic partnership" of a 17-year marriage should receive only 35 percent of the couple's property, a New York judge has ruled.
"The Court finds that during the marriage ... the Wife provided a substantial share of the financial and day-to-day support in maintaining the household ... includ[ing] working full-time, being the primary caregiver for their son and ... providing for the consistent and reliable income flow the family enjoyed," Acting Supreme Court Justice Mark D. Cohen of Suffolk County wrote in Glassberg v. Glassberg, 24307/05.
Marc Glassberg, an English teacher who went to law school at night, married Dorene Glassberg, a special education teacher, in 1988, a second marriage for both. The parties have one child, born in 1989. Ms. Glassberg filed for divorce in October 2005.
At a trial in February, Mr. Glassberg, who was admitted in 1985, testified that he "never netted more than $30,000 annually in earnings as an attorney," except in one instance, where he may have cleared $100,000 in 1991 due to a large referral fee.
He also testified that he ran his practice out of his basement and his car after being unable to afford a storefront office.
Glassberg resigned from the bar and was disbarred in 2000, as the result of disciplinary proceedings against him for failing to preserve client funds from the sale of a home (In re Glassberg, 275 AD2d 94). Since then, he has worked in a series of jobs, including stints at Godiva Chocolates and a card store.
In 1999, he took another job teaching English at a Bronx high school commuting six hours a day but was fired in 2001 for misconduct, according to the decision. A teacher in Los Angeles since 2008, Mr. Glassberg reported an income of just over $64,000 in 2008, according to the decision.
Ms. Glassberg, on the other hand, earned more than $118,000, according to her 2007 tax return, as a 30-year veteran of the Brentwood Union Free School District.
Mr. Glassberg argued that he had been involved with his family and that despite his "hard luck, misfortune and indeed a 'reversal of fortune,'" had striven to be a parent and provider.
Ms. Glassberg countered that despite working full-time, she "engaged in virtually all of the household duties with no assistance" from Mr. Glassberg, including cooking, cleaning, yard work, laundry and "always" doing homework with their son. She conceded that Mr. Glassberg coached the son's soccer team for two years and took out the garbage, Cohen noted.
While Mr. Glassberg "surely exercised extremely poor judgment" in getting disbarred, he "nonetheless generally (although at times inconsistently) acted to earn income during the marriage," Cohen wrote.
However, his role in running the day-to-day household and contributing to the economic partnership was "limited, sporadic, unreliable and inconsistent," the judge concluded. He awarded Ms. Glassberg 65 percent of the marital estate in equitable distribution.
The marital estate was worth approximately $650,000. It included a house appraised at $435,000 and retirement benefits for Ms. Glassberg.
In a footnote, Cohen observed that Mr. Glassberg claimed the marital residence was purchased "together" but conceded that Ms. Glassberg had title to the home due to "credit problems." Mr. Glassberg also claimed he paid $8,000 for an in-ground pool, but could not provide documentation for that claim.
Lewis Silverman, director of the Family Law Clinic at Touro Law Center, said that typically judges "tend to go fairly close to 50-50" when dividing marital property unless some factor "really justifies deviation from the concept that marriage is an economic partnership."
"The court will recognize non-economic contributions to equalize assets, resources and liabilities," Silverman said in an interview. While one spouse may not have contributed monetarily, courts look to whether there has been a contribution of "sweat equity."
Commack attorney Debra L. Rubin of Rubin & Rosenblum represented Ms. Glassberg. In an interview, Rubin applauded the court's recognition that "there was not a true economic partnership here and the wife carried the lion's share of the financial and home-front obligations."
Rubin argued that Mr. Glassberg's conduct in losing his law license and getting fired from his New York teaching job should be considered wasteful dissipation of marital assets, reducing his share of the couple's property.
"I was looking for a finding that by getting disbarred, the husband lost a law practice that could have had a considerable value subject to equitable distribution, and that by being fired as a teacher, the value of his pension, which was also subject to equitable distribution, was significantly reduced," she said.
However, she said the court "bypassed" that theory, instead settling on the conclusion that Mr. Glassberg had not contributed equally to the economic partnership of the marriage.
T. Glenn Hoffman of Bay Shore represented Mr. Glassberg.
