A New York appellate court recently modified a divorce judgment in the case of Bergam v. Dinerman, impacting the financial responsibilities of Barry Dinerman. The court's decision, issued on August 12, 2026, revises the amount of child support arrears Dinerman must pay and clarifies the division of marital property. This ruling is significant for individuals navigating divorce proceedings, as it sets a precedent for how courts may handle similar disputes over child support and property division.
The case involves Mary Bergam and Barry Dinerman, who were married on July 2, 1988, and have three children who are now grown. The couple's divorce proceedings began on May 30, 2013, when Bergam filed for divorce and sought ancillary relief. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Kings County, where a nonjury trial took place over several sessions in 2016 and 2017. The court ultimately issued a decision on March 20, 2023, followed by a formal judgment on March 20, 2024.
The dispute primarily revolved around child support obligations and the division of marital property, including an investment account and credit card debt. Dinerman appealed several aspects of the divorce judgment, particularly the amount of child support arrears he was ordered to pay, which was initially set at $142,497.36. He also contested the classification of a certain investment account as marital property and sought credit for utility payments and repairs made to the marital residence.
The court ruled on multiple aspects of the divorce judgment. It modified the amount of child support arrears owed by Dinerman, reducing it from $142,497.36 to $84,350.89. The judges, including Lara J. Genovesi, William G. Ford, Carl J. Landicino, and Susan Quirk, agreed that the initial calculation of child support was flawed. They stated, "the court failed to provide any rationale for including income in excess of the statutory cap, such that it did not set forth a sufficient basis for its determination to calculate child support based on combined parental income exceeding the statutory cap."
Additionally, the court affirmed the decision to classify a Scottrade investment account as marital property, which Dinerman had inherited. The judges noted that Dinerman did not overcome the presumption that the account was marital property, stating, "the defendant failed to demonstrate that he detrimentally relied on the plaintiff's alleged agreement that the inherited property was separate property." The court also ruled against Dinerman's appeal regarding credits for utility payments and repairs, dismissing that portion of the appeal due to insufficient evidence.
This ruling has important implications for future divorce cases in New York. It clarifies how courts may approach the classification of inherited property when it has been commingled with marital assets. The court emphasized that to prove that property is separate, the party must provide clear and convincing evidence that it was intended to remain separate. This decision could influence how similar cases are handled, particularly regarding the equitable distribution of assets and the calculation of child support obligations.
Furthermore, the ruling highlights the importance of providing adequate documentation during divorce proceedings. The court noted that the appendix submitted by Dinerman was insufficient for determining whether he should receive credit for utility payments and repairs. This serves as a reminder for individuals involved in divorce cases to ensure that all relevant records are included in their appeals.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Dinerman will seek to appeal the court's decision further. The option for an appeal to a higher court remains open, depending on the circumstances and the legal advice he receives. There are no related cases pending that would directly affect this ruling, but it may inspire similar appeals in the future as individuals seek to clarify their financial obligations post-divorce.