Collaborative Cases

• In a divorce case involving a couple with a disabled child, the collaborative process was used to resolve custody and visitation disputes thereby minimizing conflict and saving money. The parties – with approximately equal incomes – agreed to a shared custody arrangement. Father and mother have equal physical access to the child and equally divide the reasonable expenses for the child, rather than having a traditional custody/child support payment arrangement.

• Representing the wife in an interdisciplinary collaborative divorce, worked with financial expert, husband's counsel  and the parties in structuring reasonable maintenance for the wife's support and helping her determine a new and rewarding career path. The collaborative process also helped restore the wife's relationship with her teen-age daughter, who had become estranged from her mother.
   

• Representing the husband and working as a team with the wife’s collaborative attorney, helped a couple resolve issues relating to the sale of the marital home as soon as possible so that they could equitably divide the net sale proceeds.  With the attorneys’ help, the couple came up with a creative solution that worked for both of them to finance their child’s college education. The child was about to begin college at an out-of-state public university. The husband, who was approaching retirement age, moved to that state in order to get substantially less expensive in-state tuition rates. The wife waived spousal support in exchange for the husband’s waiver of separate property credits so that $400,000 in appreciated value of the husband’s separate inherited property was divided equally. This finely tailored settlement package worked for both parties.
   

• In a case that initially began with Family Court litigation, the lawyers used collaborative techniques to get the parties to settle the Family Court case, then the subsequent divorce case was handled as a Collaborative Divorce. The husband suffered from severe depression, so the collaborative process was key to protecting his fragile mental health. The settlement included the wife’s permanent waiver of maintenance (alimony), in exchange for the husband’s waiver of valuable separate property credits with respect to his retirement funds; the retirement funds were divided equally.
   

• In a case that began as a Collaborative Divorce, the respectful negotiations contributed to the parties’ reaching a meeting of the minds for a divorce settlement . . . and to their subsequent decision to discontinue the divorce negotiations and resume marriage counseling in an effort to save their marriage.
   

• Represented a physician in a full interdisciplinary team collaborative case. This case involves complex issues including enhanced earning capacity of titled spouse in a surgical specialty acquired during the marriage, and avoidance of double counting regarding possible distributive award based on said enhanced earning capacity and maintenance award to non-titled spouse.
  
  Arnold has handled many collaborative cases representing clients with substantial assets and income, which have resulted in settlements meeting their reasonable needs. These clients include a real estate developer who expected to inherit $200 million, a former partner of a major Wall Street law firm with  $400,000.00 of annual income and $5 million of assets, a commodities trader with $3.5 million of annual income and $6 million of assets, and an entrepreneur with $2 million of annual income and about $7 million of assets. No matter what your situation may be, Arnold is non-judgmental and will do his best to help you decide what the best course of action is for you.
  
   

Prior results do not guarantee similar outcome.

Litigated Cases

• After a four-month child custody trial, obtained child custody for a mother with a history of bipolar disorder, in treatment and in remission.

• In a litigated divorce case where the client wanted to use the collaborative process but spouse would not cooperate, was able to apply collaborative techniques to narrow the issues, contain the conflict and obtain a favorable result at trial and in defending a subsequent appeal. See article: "The Struggle to Preserve Collaborative Law Benefits when Litigating a Divorce, " published in the Spring/Summer, 2007 edition of the Westchester Bar Journal.
   

• Successfully argued in a three-day child custody trial that a non-custodial father was entitled to a court order restraining the custodial parent, the mother, from relocating with the child to a distant state. The court found that the relocation would interfere with the child’s regular, frequent visitation with his father and would not serve the child’s best interests. See article, "Restraining the Custodial Parent from Relocating the child to a distant domicile and depriving the Non-Custodial Parent of regular and frequent visitation," by Arnold D. Cribari Esq., published in the May, 1988 edition of the Domestic Law Review of the Westchester County Bar Association, Family Law section.
   

• Obtained a $140,000 distributive award (plus child support, maintenance and reimbursement of counsel fees) for a wife based on the husband’s enhanced earning capacity during the marriage. The wife had managed the home and two children while the husband became board-eligible as an emergency room physician.
   

• Obtained a maintenance award for a husband with recurrent major depression directing his wife to pay him $5,000/month for his support. In addition, obtained a $600,000 settlement as the husband’s fair share of the wife’s retirement funds accrued during the marriage.
   

• Recently obtained a stay order from the Appellate Division Second Department restraining the enforcement of judgments pending an appeal in a divorce action.
   

• Recently won appeal to Appellate Division Second Department reversing and setting aside judgments of lower court, which had awarded a $75,738.00 distributive award and $60,000.00 in counsel fees. 
   

• Served as Trial and/or Appellate Counsel in the following reported cases:

- Zuluaga v. Diaz, New York Law Journal, 5/12/10, page 41, columns 1 & 2
- Cukier v. Cukier , 54 AD3d 385 (Second Dept.,  
  2008)
- Madori v. Madori, 151 Misc2d 737, 573 NYS2d 553 Sup. Ct., Westchester Co., 1991)
- Diaco v. Diaco, 278 AD2d 358, 717 NYS2d 635 (Second Dept., 2000)
- Lee v. Fisher Hotels Inc., 130 AD2d 628, 515 NYS 2d 556 (Second Dept., 1987);
- Pompa v. Pompa, 259 AD2d 338, 687 NYS2d 25 (First Dept., 1999)
- Lasky V. Lasky, 216 AD2d 366, 628 NYS2d 532 (Second Dept., 1995)
- Galotti v. Galotti, 251 AD2d 285, 672 NYS2d 924 (Second Dept., 1998)
- Meyer v. Meyer, 88 NY2d 1062, 651 NYS2d 404 (1996)

Prior results do not guarantee similar outcome.