A03392Introduced in the Assembly
Allows for no fault separation where the relationship between the spouses has broken down irretrievably for a period of at least six months; requires that issues of support and custody or visitation have been resolved.
Introduced by Charles Lavine, District 13
What does this bill do?
Plain-English breakdown
Writing a plain-English summary of this bill… this can take a few seconds the first time.
Official description
Allows for no fault separation where the relationship between the spouses has broken down irretrievably for a period of at least six months; requires that issues of support and custody or visitation have been resolved.
Where it stands
substituted by s1261a
March 24, 2025
How did lawmakers vote?
AssemblyStage: Assembly Judiciary Committee: Favorable · March 18, 2025
15
Yes
6
No
0
Absent or Not Voting
21 assemblymembers recorded in this Assembly vote. Colors show vote categories only, not whether a vote was good or bad.
What do people think?
Citizen Voice
How would you vote on this bill?
An unofficial public opinion poll. It does not affect the bill or the official vote.
One response per device. Location is self-reported and not verified. Results are informal and not a scientific survey.
See how each assemblymember voted
| Assemblymember | District | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Doug Smith | 5 | No |
| Keith Brown | 12 | No |
| Charles Lavine | 13 | Yes |
| John Mikulin | 17 | No |
| David Weprin | 24 | Yes |
| Edward Braunstein | 26 | Yes |
| Sam Berger | 27 | Yes |
| Jenifer Rajkumar | 38 | Yes |
| Robert Carroll | 44 | Yes |
| Marcela Mitaynes | 51 | Yes |
Bill history
referred to judiciary
amend and recommit to judiciary
print number 3392a
reported
advanced to third reading cal.65
substituted by s1261a
Verify the information
Our commitment to neutrality
We provide factual information only. We never tell you which politicians or bills to support, and we do not rank, score, or endorse anyone.