New York adopted no-fault divorce on October 12, 2010, when Governor David Paterson signed the legislation that added section 170(7) to the Domestic Relations Law. The law took effect 60 days later, on October 12, 2010, applying to actions commenced on or after that date. New York was the last state in the country to adopt no-fault divorce, holding out for nearly four decades after California became the first to authorize it in 1970. Clients calling Roven Law Group sometimes assume no-fault divorce has always been available in New York, particularly younger clients who have only known the post-2010 framework. Understanding when the change happened and what it actually changed helps put the current rules in context.
Here is the history, the substance of the change, and what it means for divorces filed today.
The Pre-2010 Framework
Before October 2010, every divorce filed in New York required proof of one of the traditional fault grounds under Domestic Relations Law section 170. The available grounds included cruel and inhuman treatment, abandonment, imprisonment for three or more consecutive years, adultery, and living apart for at least one year under either a separation judgment or a written separation agreement.
The framework produced two practical problems. Couples who simply wanted to end an amicable but failed marriage either had to fabricate fault allegations or wait out a one-year separation period under a formal agreement. The separation agreement route required negotiating and signing a comprehensive contract a full year before the divorce could be finalized, then living apart in compliance with its terms throughout that year.
Contested fault trials were also a routine feature of matrimonial practice. A spouse who wanted out of a marriage that the other spouse wanted to preserve had to prove misconduct, often through embarrassing testimony, hired investigators, and documentary evidence. The system encouraged accusations and theatrical proof contests over conduct that, in many cases, the parties would have preferred to leave private.
Why New York Was the Last State to Change
New York’s resistance to no-fault divorce was rooted in a combination of religious, political, and institutional factors. The state has a large Catholic and Orthodox Jewish population, and religious organizations historically opposed reforms perceived as making divorce easier. Bar associations and matrimonial practitioners held divided views, with some favoring reform and others concerned about the financial protections available to less-monied spouses under a fault-based system.
Several reform attempts failed in the legislature over the decades. Bills introduced in the 1990s and 2000s passed one chamber but stalled in the other, often over concerns about how no-fault divorce would interact with spousal support and equitable distribution. The 2010 legislation included provisions strengthening counsel fee awards under Domestic Relations Law section 237 and adopting the temporary maintenance formula now reflected in section 236(B)(5-a), which addressed many of the concerns that had blocked earlier reforms.
What Section 170(7) Actually Says
The no-fault provision added in 2010 is brief. Section 170(7) allows a divorce when the relationship between husband and wife has broken down irretrievably for a period of at least six months, provided that one party has so stated under oath. The other spouse cannot block the divorce by disputing whether the marriage is broken.
The proof requirement is minimal. The plaintiff signs a sworn statement, and the ground is established. The court does not investigate whether the marriage really is broken, and the other spouse cannot demand evidence beyond the affidavit. The six-month period refers to how long the marriage has been broken, not how long the case has been pending, and the plaintiff’s sworn statement establishes the period.
What the 2010 Change Did Not Do
The shift to no-fault 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 itself is now easy to establish. Everything else takes the same time it always did.
The fault grounds also remain on the books. 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, faster, and almost never produces a different financial outcome.
Why the Change Mattered in Practice
The 2010 reform shifted the focus of New York divorce litigation almost entirely to financial and parenting issues. Trials on the question of whether a marriage was over essentially disappeared. Cases where one spouse wanted out and the other refused to cooperate became simpler to resolve. The pretrial litigation phase shortened in cases where the only contested issue had been the ground itself.
The change also made it easier for spouses to leave abusive or untenable marriages without subjecting themselves to a public proof contest. A spouse who would have struggled to assemble corroborating evidence under the old framework can now obtain a divorce on a sworn statement.
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 walks clients through the available grounds, explains why the no-fault provision almost always fits, and focuses the strategic work on the financial and parenting issues that actually drive the outcome. 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.