⚖️📱💻 STI Transmission as Domestic Violence + Heavy Use of Mobile & Digital Evidence
NOTE: All names and identities are fictitious and have been changed to protect the parties' identities.
The NY Supreme Court’s decision in AM v. PM is not just a domestic‑violence ruling—it is a forensic‑driven equitable‑distribution case with major implications for matrimonial attorneys, DV practitioners, and digital‑forensics experts.
At issue: Does the reckless transmission of an STI constitute domestic violence under DRL §236(B)?
The court held: Yes. Absolutely. And it awarded the wife 100% of the marital estate.
But the path to that conclusion was paved by digital forensics.
🔎 Why This Case Matters to Legal & Forensic Practitioners
1. Digital Evidence Drove Credibility Findings
Mobile‑device analysis played a critical role in corroborating the wife’s testimony. Forensic artifacts included:
• Authenticated text threats (“I will kill you on sight,” “I’m going to kill us”)
• Metadata confirming timestamps and device origin
• Call logs and location history supporting the timeline of violent incidents
• Financial‑forensic analysis showing cash withdrawals consistent with drug use and weapons purchases
• Medical communications/data confirming STI diagnoses and procedure dates
The husband offered no rebuttal forensic evidence, weakening his credibility substantially.
🔎 2. Digital Preservation Failures Hurt the Husband
The husband failed to:
• Preserve financial records
• Provide phone records
• Produce a Statement of Net Worth
• Comply with discovery orders
This allowed the court to lean heavily on the wife’s digital evidence and testimony, and the husband was precluded from presenting defenses tied to missing documents.
For attorneys:
⚠️ This is a clear reminder that non‑compliance + absent digital records = evidentiary death sentence.
🔎 3. STI Transmission Treated as Domestic Violence—with Forensic Proof
The court found the husband recklessly transmitted HSV‑1, HSV‑2, and HPV.
Evidence included:
• Medical documentation
• Testimony supported by date‑stamped communications
• Absence of any contradictory forensic or medical evidence from the husband
The court analogized to reckless endangerment under NY Penal Law, emphasizing foreseeability and gross deviation from reasonable marital conduct.
🔎 4. Equitable Distribution: 100% to the Wife
This is rare, but justified. Domestic violence was analyzed under DRL §236(B)(5)(d)(14) and supported by:
• Digital proof of threats and coercive control
• Forensic corroboration of financial waste
• Hospital incident records
• STI‑related medical impact
The husband received no share of:
🏠 Residence proceeds
💰 Bank accounts
📈 Retirement assets
🚗 Vehicles
And was ordered to pay retroactive child support and secure it via life insurance.
🔎 5. Practical Lessons for Attorneys & Forensic Specialists
💡 Mobile forensics is no longer optional in DV and matrimonial cases.
💡 Digital threats carry significant evidentiary weight in equitable distribution.
💡 Forensic financial analysis can establish dissipation, coercion, and abuse patterns.
💡 Courts will credit coherent digital narratives when one party fails to preserve or produce records.
💡 STI transmission cases may increasingly use medical metadata, device logs, and comms history to establish recklessness or intent.
🧩 Bottom Line
For legal and forensic practitioners, AM v. PM is a modern template for:
✔️ Integrating digital evidence into DV litigation
✔️ Using forensic artifacts to shape equitable distribution outcomes
✔️ Demonstrating recklessness through a combination of medical and communications forensics
✔️ Understanding how courts weigh behavioral, digital, and medical evidence holistically
This case underscores a new reality:
Domestic‑violence findings—and financial outcomes—now often rise or fall on digital forensics.