In a landmark decision that could reshape how courts view infidelity and health risks in marriages, a Nassau County judge has ruled that intentionally transmitting a sexually transmitted disease to a spouse constitutes a form of domestic violence under New York law. The ruling, issued on December 1, awarded the entire marital estate to the wife in a contentious divorce case involving allegations of abuse, drug addiction, and multiple extramarital affairs.
The case centers on Thomas Saxton, 38, and his estranged wife, whose identity is being protected. According to court documents, Saxton, a convicted felon with a history of violence, infected his wife with herpes and human papillomavirus (HPV) during their marriage, leading to severe health consequences for her. The wife testified that she underwent surgery to remove precancerous cells from her cervix, which were apparently caused by the HPV she contracted from Saxton, and that she now requires lifelong medication to manage the conditions.
Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Edmund Dane described the transmission of the STDs as one of Saxton's "profound acts of domestic violence" in his ruling. The judge awarded the wife 100 percent of the couple's assets, which included a few thousand dollars in bank accounts and the limited proceeds from the sale of their home. This equitable distribution was influenced by a 2020 amendment to New York state's Domestic Relations Law, which allows courts to consider evidence of domestic violence when dividing marital property.
The decision marks the first time in New York that transmitting an STD has been explicitly classified as domestic violence in the context of asset division during a divorce, according to Morghan Richardson, a law professor at Pace University. "This decision is significant and, in many ways, a landmark victory for domestic violence advocates," Richardson told the New York Post. She emphasized that while the ruling sets a precedent, it builds on existing laws that criminalize knowingly spreading STDs, though no criminal charges have been filed against Saxton in this instance.
Byron Divins, a lawyer from the Williston Park firm Capetola & Divins, who represented the wife, called the outcome "huge." "No court has ever really, as far as I’m aware, made [sexually transmitted diseases] the center of their decision," Divins said. He credited trial attorney Alexandra Mule for building a compelling case against Saxton, whose abusive behavior extended far beyond the health issue at the heart of the ruling.
Court records paint a grim picture of Saxton's conduct during the marriage. He reportedly had multiple affairs, including bringing one paramour into the family home while his wife and child were present. Saxton also threatened to kill his wife on several occasions, threw a dirty frying pan at her, and spent hundreds of dollars weekly on drugs such as heroin, crack, and cocaine, according to the judge's findings.
The wife's testimony in court was emotional and detailed. She described the "agonizing" pain from the infections and affirmed that she had not been intimate with anyone outside the marriage. "I felt really vindicated through the whole thing after reading his decision," she said, adding that her ex-husband "never even tried" to deny the allegations during the proceedings. The judge found her account credible, which bolstered the case for the full asset award.
Saxton's criminal history further underscored the severity of the situation. In 2022, while the family was at Cohen Children's Medical Center in New Hyde Park, Long Island, he was arrested for pulling a gun on his wife and their child. Police later discovered multiple weapons in his possession, including illegally manufactured ghost guns. Saxton, whose arrest record dates back to 2009 in Connecticut, pleaded guilty in January 2024 to criminal possession of a weapon and is currently serving a seven-year sentence in an upstate New York prison.
Despite the gravity of the divorce ruling, Saxton did not have legal representation during the proceedings and could not be reached for comment. His absence from the courtroom left the allegations largely unchallenged, allowing the wife's evidence to stand unopposed.
Legal experts see the decision as a potential deterrent for unfaithful spouses. Ankit Kappoor, a matrimonial attorney with an office in Times Square, noted that the ruling could prompt greater caution among those engaging in extramarital activities. "Historically, I would tell the guys to get a DNA test, but now I’m going to tell them to have an STI test," Kappoor said. He suggested that the case might encourage more comprehensive health disclosures in divorce filings moving forward.
The broader context of domestic violence in New York highlights why this ruling resonates. Advocates have long pushed for expanded definitions of abuse to include non-physical harms, such as those affecting long-term health. The 2020 legislative change, which Dane invoked, was part of a statewide effort to empower victims by ensuring that patterns of coercive control influence financial outcomes in separations.
While the Saxton case is groundbreaking, it is not without limitations. The assets involved were modest, reflecting the couple's financial struggles amid Saxton's drug abuse and legal troubles. Richardson, the Pace professor, cautioned that the ruling's impact may vary in wealthier divorces, where asset division is more complex, but she praised it for elevating health-related abuse in judicial considerations.
For the wife, the decision brings a measure of closure after years of turmoil. She urged other victims of domestic violence to seek help, acknowledging the fear involved. "It’s scary to come forward," she said, encouraging support from organizations like those offering legal aid and counseling services across Long Island and beyond.
As New York courts grapple with evolving norms around marriage and abuse, this case could inspire similar claims in future divorces. Family law practitioners are already discussing how to integrate STD transmission evidence, potentially leading to more rigorous medical testing in contentious splits. Officials with the New York State Unified Court System have not commented on whether the ruling will be appealed, but its precedent-setting nature suggests it may face scrutiny from higher courts.
In the end, the Nassau County ruling underscores a shifting legal landscape where the consequences of betrayal extend beyond emotional pain to tangible health and financial repercussions. For survivors like Saxton's wife, it represents not just vindication, but a step toward accountability in one of the state's most intimate legal battles.