When Maintenance Isn’t Awarded: Diop v. Gueye and the Discretion of Spousal Support in New York
In the contested divorce case of Diop v. Gueye, the appeals court addressed the trial court’s decision to decline awarding spousal maintenance (alimony) to either spouse. This case highlights how New York law treats maintenance under its formulaic guidelines and the extent of judicial discretion.
Background of the case
The couple got married back in 2005 and had two kids together. The wife was born in 1983, while the husband was born in 1957. At some point, the wife filed for divorce. The court granted her divorce and required the husband to pay $800 a month in child support. But neither party got spousal support after the divorce was finalized. The judge refused to award it to either party.
This ended up being a major issue on appeal. The question then became whether the trial court made the right call in refusing to award spousal support and if the court followed the rules under New York Domestic Relations Law section 236(B).
The appeal
In April 2025, the Appellate Division issued its opinion, which mostly upheld the trial court’s decision. The justices found that the trial judge hadn’t overstepped or misused its discretion based on the evidence available.
One thing the panel stressed was that, under New York Law (DRL § 236(B)), there’s a standard formula for calculating spousal maintenance. This gives a “presumed” amount based on how long the couple was married and what they each earn. But that number isn’t set in stone. It’s more of a starting point. Judges can raise it, lower it, or even decide not to award maintenance at all. This depends entirely on how the case played out. Questions like “how was property divided” become central.
In this case, the appellate court felt the trial court made a fair call.
- The trial court had a detailed evidentiary record regarding each party’s earning capacity, health, work history, and contributions during the marriage.
- The parties had complex financial circumstances, including property distribution and the ages and career prospects of the spouses.
- Although the wife sought maintenance, the trial court concluded that awarding maintenance was not necessary to achieve fairness, given the equitable distribution of the marital estate.
- The appellate court further noted that the statutory factors need not each be explicitly cited so long as the factual findings demonstrate that the court considered them.
Significance for clients
For spouses going through a divorce, this case demonstrates several important truths about alimony in New York:
- Alimony is not automatic – Even in a long marriage, a spouse is not guaranteed maintenance. Courts will look at the entire picture before deciding.
- The formula doesn’t control the outcome – New York’s maintenance guidelines provide a baseline estimate, but the judge can adjust or reject it if it doesn’t fit the couple’s circumstances.
- Earning capacity matters (not just income) – If a spouse is healthy and has the ability to work or increase income, the court may decide maintenance isn’t necessary.
- Property division affects support – If a spouse receives substantial assets during equitable distribution, that may reduce the need for ongoing payments.
Talk to a Rockland County, NY, Divorce Lawyer Today
The Law Office of Robert S. Sunshine represents the interests of Rockland County residents during their divorce. Call our Rockland County family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.
Source:
nycourts.gov/reporter//3dseries/2025/2025_01992.htm
