On March 26, 2025, the Appellate Division, Second Department issued its decision in Torkin v. Susac, a matrimonial case involving complex issues of equitable distribution, post-divorce maintenance, and the treatment of trust assets.¹ The court largely affirmed the rulings of the trial court, which had divided significant marital property and awarded substantial ongoing maintenance to the non-monied spouse.
Background
Michael Torkin and Heather Susac were married in 2001 and had two children together. After pursuing an unsuccessful collaborative divorce process, the couple formalized a series of agreements in 2016, including a “Stop-the-Clock Agreement” that fixed the valuation date for marital assets as December 31, 2016. Torkin commenced the divorce action nearly a year later, in December 2017.
The trial court entered an amended judgment of divorce in December 2021 that addressed multiple disputes over property classification and support. Both parties appealed.
Timeline
Key Rulings
Equitable Distribution of Law Firm Partnership Interest
One major issue was the equitable distribution of Torkin’s partnership interest in Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. The trial court awarded Susac a 37% interest in that asset, based in part on her indirect contributions as a homemaker and caregiver during the marriage. The appellate court upheld this determination, citing established precedent that permits courts to consider non-financial contributions in distributing career-based marital assets.²
Trust Assets: Commingling Converts to Marital Property
The court affirmed that the Michael H. Torkin 2014 Trust was marital property subject to equal distribution. Although Torkin asserted it was separate property, the court found that he had commingled marital funds with trust assets and failed to trace the origin of the funds clearly enough to rebut the marital property presumption.³ This is a key reminder that even nominally separate trusts can become marital assets through poor asset management.
Maintenance Award Reflects Statutory Changes and Advisory Durations
The appellate court affirmed the maintenance structure adopted by the lower court: $10,000 per month until the sale of the marital residence, followed by $23,000 per month until mid-2027. The court found this consistent with New York’s amended post-divorce maintenance laws, which apply a statutory formula up to a certain income cap and then allow judicial discretion beyond that.⁴ The trial court appropriately considered relevant factors like earning capacity, lifestyle, and asset division.
Carrying Costs and Credits
Torkin sought a credit for carrying costs (mortgage, taxes, etc.) paid on the marital residence during the pendency of the action. The court rejected this claim, emphasizing that those payments essentially fulfilled his support obligations.⁵ Since the parties agreed to maintain the financial status quo during the collaborative divorce attempt, he was not entitled to reimbursement.
Treatment of Liquid Assets and Divorce Costs
Another notable issue involved Torkin’s use of roughly 80% of the couple’s liquid assets to fund legal and financial costs related to the collaborative divorce process. The trial court awarded the remainder of the liquid assets to Susac, finding that Torkin should have used his post-commencement earnings instead. The appellate court affirmed, reinforcing the principle that one spouse may not unilaterally deplete marital assets to fund litigation.⁶
Child Support: Income Cap Applied
The child support award was also affirmed. The court applied New York’s statutory formula up to a combined parental income cap of $400,000 and found no basis to deviate based on the children’s college expenses or the father’s contributions to room and board. Courts retain discretion when dealing with high-income families, particularly when the marital standard of living was affluent.⁷
This decision shows the New York courts’ strong adherence to statutory frameworks for equitable distribution and maintenance, while also exercising significant discretion in applying those laws to the facts of high-net-worth divorces. Notably:
- Trusts are not immune from equitable distribution, especially when commingling occurs.
- Courts continue to reward non-financial contributions when distributing career-based assets.
- Formulas guide maintenance and support awards but remain individualized.
Agreements reached during collaborative divorce processes can have binding legal effects, even if the process ultimately fails.
Reuben Gottlieb Esq., CPA, MS-Forensic Accounting
rgottlieb@msgcpa.com | (646) 661-3800 ext. 110
Reuben Gottlieb is an attorney and a Certified Public Accountant with a master’s degree in forensic accounting. When not deep in valuation models or shareholder disputes, you can find Reuben running loops in Central Park or enjoying everyday adventures with his wife and son.
1 Torkin v. Susac, — N.Y.S.3d —, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 01835 (App. Div. 2d Dep’t Mar. 26, 2026).
2 See Novick v. Novick, 214 A.D.3d 995, 998, 185 N.Y.S.3d 793 (2d Dep’t 2023); Klestadt v. Klestadt, 182 A.D.3d 592, 594, 120 N.Y.S.3d 813 (2d Dep’t 2020).
3 See Glessing v. Glessing, 212 A.D.3d 783, 784, 181 N.Y.S.3d 650 (2d Dep’t 2023); Ferrante v. Ferrante, 186 A.D.3d 566, 568, 128 N.Y.S.3d 590 (2d Dep’t 2020).
4 See N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 236(B)(6); Novick, 214 A.D.3d at 997.
5 See Iacono v. Iacono, 145 A.D.3d 972, 974, 44 N.Y.S.3d 495 (2d Dep’t 2016); Westbrook v. Westbrook, 164 A.D.3d 939, 944, 83 N.Y.S.3d 560 (2d Dep’t 2018).
6 See N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 236(B)(5)(d); Gigliotti v. Gigliotti, 221 A.D.3d 864, 865, 201 N.Y.S.3d 63 (2d Dep’t 2023).
7 See N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240(1–b); Miller v. Miller, 216 A.D.3d 1154, 1156, 189 N.Y.S.3d 732 (3d Dep’t 2023).