Alyssa A Rower

April 07, 2022 | New York Law Journal

This article provides a discussion of the various things courts consider when deciding whether to enforce a choice of law clause in prenuptial agreements.

By Alyssa A. Rower, Karina VanHouten and Margaret Sarratt

8 minute read

April 20, 2020 | New York Law Journal

If the purpose of maintenance is truly to tide the dependent spouse over until he/she can achieve self-sufficiency, then courts should consider practical issues that arise for the dependent spouse needing to be retrained.

By Alyssa A. Rower and Leslie Stewart Sullivan

6 minute read

May 02, 2012 | New York Law Journal

Allan E. Mayefsky, managing partner of Aronson, Mayefsky & Sloan, and Alyssa A. Rower, an associate at the firm, write that it seems we are far from achieving the "consistency and predictability" in temporary maintenance awards that the Legislature desired and it remains to be seen whether we ever will.

By Allan E. Mayefsky and Alyssa A. Rower

13 minute read

August 29, 2011 | New York Law Journal

Allan E. Mayefsky and Alyssa A. Rower of Aronson, Mayefsky & Sloan write that Strack v. Strack, where the judge ordered an immediate trial on whether or not a couple's relationship had "broken down irretrievably for a period of at least six months" notwithstanding the fact that the wife had made the necessary sworn statements under the new no-fault law, raises two interesting questions: First, does a litigant who opposes a DRL §170(7) divorce always have the right to trial? And if so, how does a plaintiff prove that a marriage has broken down irretrievably?

By Allan E. Mayefsky and Alyssa A. Rower

10 minute read

October 14, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Allan E. Mayefsky, the managing partner of Sheresky Aronson Mayefsky & Sloan, and Alyssa A. Rower, an associate at the firm, write that although the Second Department in Wegman v. Wegman encouraged courts to use flexibility in setting valuation dates for marital property, in the years since, the judicial analysis has grown consistently more rigid, to the point where courts formulaically categorize an asset as either "active" or "passive" and assign valuation dates based on that categorization. This formulation may streamline and simplify the process, but a rule that assumes that the rise and fall in the value of "active" assets is always caused by the efforts of one spouse is simply untenable, especially in the midst of what is universally recognized as a global economic crisis.

By Allan E. Mayefsky and Alyssa A. Rower

11 minute read