A New York appellate court recently ruled on a divorce case involving Paul and Nina Cardone, impacting how divorce settlements are interpreted and enforced. The court's decision, issued on May 20, 2026, addressed the division of retirement assets and the awarding of attorney fees in the context of their divorce.
The ruling comes after the couple was divorced by a judgment entered on March 10, 2022. This decision is significant as it clarifies the responsibilities of both parties regarding tax liabilities and attorney fees in divorce settlements.
Paul Cardone, the respondent in the case, and Nina Cardone, the appellant, were married for nearly 38 years and have two emancipated children. Their divorce proceedings included a stipulation of settlement that outlined how their marital assets, including retirement accounts, would be divided. This stipulation was incorporated into the divorce judgment but was not merged with it, meaning the agreement remains a separate contract.
The dispute arose when Nina Cardone filed a motion in May 2022, seeking to hold Paul Cardone in contempt for allegedly failing to distribute his retirement accounts as agreed. She also requested an award of attorney fees. In response, Paul Cardone cross-moved, seeking reimbursement for tax liabilities he incurred when he paid Nina Cardone $58,000 from his retirement account as part of their agreement.
The Supreme Court of Suffolk County, presided over by Judge Glenn A. Murphy, issued an order on September 20, 2022. The court denied Nina Cardone's request for attorney fees and granted Paul Cardone's request to direct each party to be responsible for their respective tax liabilities related to the retirement accounts. This order was the subject of Nina Cardone's appeal.
In its ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed the lower court's decision. The justices, including Hector D. LaSalle, William G. Ford, Helen Voutsinas, and James P. McCormack, emphasized that a stipulation of settlement in a divorce constitutes a contract, which must be interpreted according to its clear terms. The court stated, "Where the intention of the parties is clearly and unambiguously set forth, effect must be given to the intent as indicated by the language used."
The court further explained that it could not add or remove terms from the contract under the guise of interpretation. It noted that the stipulation specifically provided for the equal division of the retirement accounts, leading to the conclusion that each party should bear their own tax liabilities from the funds they received.
The court also addressed the issue of attorney fees, stating that the lower court acted within its discretion in denying Nina Cardone's request. The ruling referenced New York's Domestic Relations Law, which governs the awarding of attorney fees in divorce cases, indicating that the overall financial circumstances of the parties were considered.
This ruling has important implications for future divorce cases in New York. It reinforces the idea that divorce settlements are treated as contracts, and the language within those contracts will be strictly adhered to by the courts. Parties entering into divorce settlements should be clear and specific in their agreements to avoid disputes later on.
Moreover, the decision clarifies the responsibilities regarding tax liabilities associated with retirement accounts. Couples going through divorce should be aware that they may be held accountable for taxes on funds they receive, depending on how their settlement is structured.
The ruling could also influence how courts handle requests for attorney fees in divorce cases. The court's emphasis on the financial circumstances of both parties suggests that each case will be evaluated on its own merits, and requests for fees may not always be granted.
As for what is next, it is unclear if Nina Cardone will seek to appeal this decision further. The court filing did not indicate any pending related cases. However, the outcome of this case may serve as a reference for other couples navigating similar issues in divorce proceedings.