Finally! Gov. David A. Paterson on Aug. 13 signed into law significant new legislation to reform New York State’s outdated divorce laws.

New York will finally join the other 49 states in allowing no-fault divorce, meaning couples can end a marriage without having to affix blame, an often costly and lengthy process.

In 2005, I commented that “New York’s divorce laws were high-button shoes” regarding grounds for divorce, and were long past due for change.

Influential members of the bar and judiciary attempted over the past 15 years to have the State Legislature provide for no-fault divorce legislation to allow marriages to end without blame or confrontation and to end marriages that have been dysfunctional for years and in many cases were detrimental to the emotional and mental wellbeing of children of the marriage.

There are other advantages. A study cited by the state Office of Court Administration’s Office of Matrimonial and Family Law Study and Reform showed a significant decline in domestic violence in states with no-fault divorce. The 27 states studied saw female suicide rates decline approximately 20 percent, while reports of domestic violence committed by husbands against wives were reduced by more than one-third.

Prominent matrimonial attorney Raoul Felder, speaking of New York’s revised law, was quoted as saying, “It’s a disgrace. It’s going to increase divorce and enable older men with money to throw the wife under the bus. The only people to benefit will be the lawyers.”

I disagree.

Over the years, I have seen far too many instances where women have been unwilling or unable to end a dysfunctional marriage because they didn’t want to or were afraid to testify in open court as to the husband’s cruel and inhuman treatment, which was required to have a divorce granted. (While there were five other grounds, the majority of divorces in New York were under the cruel and inhuman treatment section.)

The revised law, which takes effect on Oct. 12, adds a new ground, “irretrievable breakdown,” which allows for one spouse to swear under oath that the marriage relationship has broken down irretrievably for at least six months. The new law still requires that, prior to the court granting a divorce, economic issues involving equitable distribution of marital property, alimony (maintenance), child custody and visitation, child support and counsel, and expert fees be resolved. These safeguards ensure that the concepts of equitable distribution, maintenance and the Child Support Standards Act (providing guidelines for child support) are in place prior to granting the divorce.

Not receiving nearly as much attention or press is a second bill passed by the Legislature, which revises the ability of the poorer spouse to apply to the court for payment of interim counsel and expert fees in divorce actions from the more-monied spouse. The bill provides for a rebuttable presumption of interim attorneys’ fees and expert fees to the poorer spouse by the one party to the other in divorce actions. This bill will allow the non-monied party to have fees to initiate, carry on or defend the matrimonial action from the inception of the case, rather than during or after the case has been in the court system for months or years.

Since non-monied spouses have been predominantly women, the divorce playing field will finally be balanced and not allow the spouse with significant financial resources to retain attorneys and experts the other spouse cannot afford, in many cases affecting the final outcome.

The cost of divorce continues to rise and therefore has continued to place the non-monied spouse in an untenable position, whether the case involves a few assets or millions of dollars. This law should remedy that imbalance.

Indirectly, the children will benefit by having the divorce process shortened and having the court provide a resolution or, in most cases, allowing for attorneys to reach a settlement more easily. This law also takes affect on Oct. 12.

The third bill signed by the governor establishes a process for determining the amount of temporary maintenance (alimony) awards.

The Matrimonial Commission, established in 2004 by Chief Judge Judith Kaye, found there was significant dissatisfaction by litigants and members of the bar with respect to maintenance awards and their variance and unpredictability from court to court throughout the state.

In many cases, this causes the non-monied spouse to capitulate or to agree to lesser amounts and duration of maintenance due to the inability to maintain the predivorce standard of living and/or afford continuing legal fees in a protracted divorce proceeding. Members of the judiciary and matrimonial bar for years have argued for legislative guidelines (similar to the Child Support Standards Act) so as to avoid this inconsistency.

California enacted legislation in 1977 and Pennsylvania has had formula guidelines since 1989. Studies show that there are significantly fewer inconsistencies from court to court in those states since the passage of these bills.

This bill’s legislative sponsors commented that families often do not have substantial assets to divide upon the dissolution of the marriage — the greatest asset of the marriage is frequently the income of the better employed spouse. The new law revises the statutory factors (11 to now 19) to better reflect divorcing couples’ life circumstances.

The court may now consider the following new factors: that there is a substantial difference in the incomes of the parties; the standard of living the parties established during the marriage; the existence and duration of a premarital joint household or predivorce separate household; acts by one party against the other, including, but not limited to, acts of domestic violence that inhibit a party’s earning capacity or ability to obtain meaningful employment; the availability and cost of medical insurance for the parties; the care of the children or stepchildren, disabled adult children or stepchildren, elderly parents or in-laws that inhibits or continues to inhibit a party’s earning capacity or ability to obtain meaningful employment; the inability of one party to obtain meaningful employment due to age or absence from the work force; and the need to pay for exceptional additional expenses for the child or children, such as schooling, day care and medical treatment.

The bill provides for a mathematical calculation based on the payer (the spouse with the higher income) and income of the payee (the spouse with the lower income). This creates, for the first time, a formula for temporary maintenance for the courts, attorneys and litigants.

While the bill does not address postdivorce alimony, it provides much-needed guidelines that will assist the attorneys and courts in providing for temporary maintenance, which in many cases can run months and sometimes years before postdivorce maintenance is agreed to or ordered by the court. This law will take affect on Oct. 12.

The bill does provide for the New York State Law Revision Commission to undertake an in-depth review and assessment of the economic consequences of divorce on the parties and to make recommendations to the Legislature in 2011.

Aug. 13, 2010, will be remembered as a day when New York State finally ended its “high-button shoes” approach to divorce.

Peter J. Fiorella Jr. is an attorney practicing in Buffalo.