A New York appellate court recently ruled in the case of Isenberg v. Isenberg, affecting the divorce proceedings between Susan Isenberg and Mark Isenberg. The court upheld a previous order requiring Mark Isenberg to comply with a divorce agreement that included a Jewish divorce decree, known as a "get." This decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to contractual obligations in divorce agreements, even when religious elements are involved.
The case, docket number 2024-11343, originated from a divorce finalized in June 2019 in New Jersey. The court's ruling on August 26, 2026, highlights the ongoing legal disputes that can arise from divorce proceedings, especially when they involve religious customs and arbitration agreements.
The parties in this case are Susan Isenberg, the respondent, and Mark Isenberg, the appellant. Their divorce was finalized in New Jersey, where they had agreed to submit to binding arbitration regarding the issuance of a Jewish divorce decree. This arbitration was to be overseen by a rabbi. In August 2022, the arbitrator directed Mark Isenberg to facilitate the issuance of the "get." However, he failed to comply with this directive.
Following his noncompliance, Susan Isenberg sought legal recourse. In March 2024, the New Jersey Chancery Division confirmed the arbitration award and ordered Mark Isenberg to deliver the "get" immediately. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Supreme Court in Rockland County, New York, where Susan filed a motion to enforce the New Jersey order, hold Mark in civil contempt, and suspend her maintenance obligation until he complied.
On October 22, 2024, the Supreme Court granted Susan's motion to enforce the New Jersey order and suspended her maintenance obligation until Mark complied. However, the court reserved its decision on whether to hold Mark in civil contempt and impose sanctions for his failure to comply. Mark Isenberg appealed this decision.
The appellate court, consisting of Justices Angela G. Iannacci, Janice A. Taylor, Carl J. Landicino, and Elena Goldberg Velazquez, ruled on the appeal. They dismissed Mark's appeal regarding the reserved decision on civil contempt and sanctions, stating that this portion of the order was still pending. The court affirmed the enforcement of the New Jersey order and the suspension of maintenance payments.
“The Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to enforce the March 2024 Chancery Division order and to suspend the plaintiff's obligation to pay maintenance until the defendant complied,” the court stated.
The court emphasized that civil courts can adjudicate disputes involving religious parties as long as they apply neutral principles of law. This means that the court can intervene in cases like this without getting entangled in religious controversies. The court noted that the enforcement of the New Jersey order was based on secular obligations that Mark had agreed to in their divorce agreement.
This ruling has significant implications for similar cases involving religious divorce decrees and arbitration agreements. It reinforces the principle that courts can enforce divorce agreements that contain religious elements as long as they do not interfere with religious practices. This decision may encourage other individuals in similar situations to seek enforcement of their divorce agreements, knowing that the courts will uphold their contractual obligations.
The ruling also highlights the importance of compliance with court orders in divorce cases. Mark Isenberg's failure to comply with the arbitration award and subsequent court orders led to legal consequences, including the suspension of maintenance payments. This serves as a reminder to individuals involved in divorce proceedings to adhere to the terms of their agreements to avoid further legal complications.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Mark Isenberg will appeal the court's decision further. The court's ruling leaves open the possibility for future legal action regarding the reserved decision on civil contempt and sanctions. As the case continues to evolve, it may set a precedent for how similar disputes are handled in the future.