In a significant ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York upheld a lower court's decision to hold Benjamin Foley and John Andrew Foley in civil contempt for failing to comply with a divorce settlement agreement. This ruling affects the estate of Michael J. Foley, who passed away in 2014, and has implications for how divorce settlements are enforced in New York.
The case, Foley v. Foley, was decided on September 16, 2026, under docket number 2023-05103. The court's ruling came after Teresa Foley, the respondent and widow of Michael J. Foley, sought to enforce a stipulation of settlement that required her late husband's estate to pay her a total of $600,000 as part of their divorce agreement.
This dispute centers around a stipulation of settlement dated October 7, 2013, which mandated that Michael J. Foley would pay Teresa Foley $600,000, with $75,000 due within 30 days and the remaining $525,000 by December 31, 2013. After Michael's death in April 2014, the estate, managed by co-executors Benjamin Foley and John Andrew Foley, failed to pay the remaining amount. Teresa Foley initiated legal action to enforce the settlement, leading to a series of court hearings and appeals.
The case reached the Appellate Division after a long legal journey that began when Teresa Foley moved to hold the defendants in civil contempt for not complying with the settlement agreement. Initially, a special referee recommended denying her motion, but the Appellate Division reversed that decision in January 2021, allowing the case to move forward for a determination on its merits.
On May 5, 2023, the Supreme Court of Westchester County granted Teresa Foley's motion to hold the defendants in contempt. The defendants appealed this decision, but the Appellate Division upheld the ruling, stating, "The plaintiff demonstrated that the defendants failed to comply with a clear and unequivocal mandate set forth in the stipulation of settlement." The judges involved in the ruling included Mark C. Dillon, Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, Deborah A. Dowling, and Susan Quirk.
The court's decision confirms that the defendants did not provide sufficient evidence to refute Teresa Foley's claims or demonstrate an inability to comply with the settlement terms. The ruling emphasized that civil contempt can be applied in cases where a party fails to pay a sum of money ordered by the court, especially when execution cannot be awarded for collection.
This ruling has important implications for divorce settlements and estate management in New York. It reinforces the enforceability of stipulations of settlement in divorce cases, particularly when one party fails to meet their financial obligations. The decision serves as a reminder that courts can hold individuals accountable for not adhering to divorce agreements, even after the death of one party.
The ruling could set a precedent for similar cases in the future, emphasizing the importance of compliance with court orders and the consequences of failing to do so. It also highlights the legal responsibilities of estate executors in managing and fulfilling obligations that arise from divorce settlements.
Looking ahead, the defendants in this case may still seek further legal recourse. While the Appellate Division's ruling is significant, it is unclear if they will pursue an appeal to a higher court or if any related cases are pending. Details were not available in the court filing regarding their next steps, but the defendants have the option to appeal the ruling to the New York Court of Appeals.