New York became a no-fault divorce state on October 12, 2010, when the legislation adding section 170(7) to the Domestic Relations Law took effect. New York was the last state in the country to make the change, and the decades of resistance produced real consequences for the couples who divorced before the reform. Clients calling Roven Law Group sometimes ask what divorce actually looked like in New York before 2010, particularly when they hear stories from older relatives about the lengths spouses went to in order to end a marriage. The pre-2010 framework shaped New York divorce practice in ways that still affect how matrimonial cases unfold today.
Here is what divorce in New York actually looked like before October 2010 and what changed in real cases after the reform took effect.
The Pre-2010 Reality for New York Couples
Before the no-fault provision became law, every divorce in New York required proof of fault. A spouse who wanted out of an amicable but failed marriage faced a difficult choice. The first option was pleading one of the existing fault grounds and hoping the other spouse would not contest it. The most common pleading was constructive abandonment, which required proof that one spouse had refused to engage in sexual relations with the other for at least one year. The ground was easier to establish than cruel and inhuman treatment, but it still required a sworn statement that often described the marriage in ways neither spouse particularly wanted to put into a public court record.
The second option was negotiating a written separation agreement, signing it, and then living separately under its terms for a full year before filing for divorce. The agreement had to be filed with the county clerk, and the parties had to substantially comply with its terms throughout the separation period. This route required negotiating a comprehensive settlement before the divorce could even start, then waiting twelve months while continuing to live as separated spouses.
The third option, used in some cases, was traveling to another jurisdiction with shorter residency requirements to obtain a divorce there. Some couples flew to other states or other countries for that purpose, then returned to New York with foreign divorce decrees that produced their own recognition issues.
The Cost of Contested Fault Trials
The pre-2010 system also produced contested fault trials in cases where one spouse wanted out and the other wanted to preserve the marriage. A spouse who could not establish a fault ground could not obtain a divorce. A spouse who alleged cruel and inhuman treatment, abandonment, or adultery had to prove it, often through embarrassing testimony, hired investigators, and documentary evidence.
These trials produced detailed public court records about the conduct of the marriage. Spouses who would have preferred privacy ended up testifying about intimate details of their relationship. Hired private investigators photographed extramarital encounters. Witnesses testified about behavior they had observed inside the home. The system encouraged accusations and theatrical proof contests over conduct that, in many cases, the parties would have preferred to leave private.
The financial cost was significant. Trying a contested fault case added weeks or months to the litigation timeline and tens of thousands of dollars to the legal fees. Spouses who could not afford the proof contest sometimes accepted unfavorable financial terms in exchange for the other spouse’s agreement to the divorce.
What Changed When the Law Took Effect
The no-fault provision took effect for actions commenced on or after October 12, 2010. The change happened all at once. Cases filed on October 11 still required a fault ground. Cases filed on October 12 could be filed under section 170(7) on a sworn statement that the marriage had been irretrievably broken for at least six months.
The practical impact was immediate. Trials on the question of whether a marriage was over essentially disappeared from New York matrimonial courts. Cases that would previously have required months of fault discovery and a contested hearing on the ground itself now resolved with a sworn affidavit in the opening papers. The litigation focus shifted entirely to the financial and parenting issues that actually drove the outcome of the case.
What Did Not Change
The reform did not eliminate the underlying complexity of dividing assets and addressing custody. A divorce filed under section 170(7) still has to resolve equitable distribution of marital property, spousal maintenance, child custody, child support, and counsel fees before the judgment is entered. The ground is now easy to establish. Everything else takes the same time it always did.
The fault grounds also remain available. A spouse can still plead cruel and inhuman treatment, abandonment, imprisonment, adultery, or living apart under a judgment or written agreement. These grounds are rarely chosen because the no-fault provision is simpler and almost never produces a different financial outcome.
Why the Reform Matters Today
Even fifteen years after the change, the difference between the pre-2010 and post-2010 frameworks shapes how New York attorneys approach divorce. Practitioners who began their careers before 2010 often emphasize the strategic considerations that the older system rewarded. Practitioners who began after the change have built their practices around the financial and parenting issues that now drive cases. Both perspectives have value, but the basic shape of a New York divorce today bears little resemblance to what it looked like before October 2010.
How Roven Law Group Approaches Modern Filings
A no-fault filing under section 170(7) is the standard approach in nearly every New York divorce today. Roven Law Group focuses the strategic work on the financial and parenting issues that actually drive the outcome, drawing on decades of experience across the pre-2010 and post-2010 frameworks. The firm represents clients in matrimonial proceedings across Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island. Schedule a consultation to discuss how the current rules apply to your situation.