Kruglikov v. Kruglikov
| Decision Date | 19 June 1961 |
| Citation | 217 N.Y.S.2d 845,29 Misc.2d 17 |
| Parties | Annette KRUGLIKOV v. Samuel KRUGLIKOV. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Saul C. Kauder, New York City, for defendant.
Adolph G. Kraus, Forest Hills, for witness, Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser .
Plaintiff wife instituted an action for separation in the Supreme Court, Monroe County. On April 11, 1961, an order was made for the examination before trial of Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser as a witness. It appears that the parties to this action conferred with him in his study at the Forest Hills Jewish Center, of which he is the spiritual leader, with a view to a reconciliation. The examination of the witness was held in this court and he asserted the privilege of a clergyman under section 351 of the Civil Practice Act, when the following question was put to him by the defendant's attorney:
'Rabbi, will you now please tell me the substance of the conversation you had with Mr. and Mrs. Kruglikov, giving me the date, what each person said in the presence of Mr. and Mrs. Kruglikov to the best of your recollection?'
The attorney for the defendant does not take issue with the contention of Rabbi Bokser as embodied in the letter to the court dated May 17, 1961, from the New York Board of Rabbis, wherein it is stated:
Said attorney argues, however, that neither party to this action sought guidance from Rabbi Bokser, nor was either a member of his congregation.
It is true that the consultation was initiated by a Rabbi in Rochester, New York, upon the request of plaintiff's father and that thereafter Rabbi Bokser sent a letter to the defendant which ultimately resulted in the marriage consultation at which the admissions sought to be disclosed were made.
The court is of the opinion that it matters not how and by whom the meeting was initiated. The parties had formerly lived in the community and were known to Rabbi Bokser; indeed, the plaintiff had been employed by his congregation. The fact is that they consulted a representative of their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. Hammock
...omitted). A broad construction of the statute is also consistent with case law from other states. In Kruglikov v. Kruglikov, 29 Misc.2d 17, 217 N.Y.S.2d 845, 847 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1961), the New York Supreme Court held that a rabbi could not be compelled to testify regarding marriage counseling s......
-
Lightman v. Flaum
...allegedly revealed by the plaintiff, Jewish law issued a contrary and overriding command that "thou shalt tell" (cf., Kruglikov v. Kruglikov, 29 Misc.2d 17 [wherein the New York Board of Rabbis opined that "any confidence reposed in [a rabbi] by [a] husband or wife * * * who has come to him......
-
Rivers v. Rivers, 0906
...by the evidence. Dr. Carlson considered Helen's communications to him to be confidential, as do we. See Kruglikov v. Kruglikov, 29 Misc.2d 17, 217 N.Y.S.2d 845 (1961), appeal dismissed, 16 A.D.2d 735, 226 N.Y.S.2d 931 (1962) (disclosures by a husband and wife to a rabbi with a view to recon......
-
Nussbaumer v. State
...N.W. at 591 (dicta); Kohloff v. Bronx Sav. Bank, 37 Misc.2d 27, 233 N.Y.S.2d 849, 850 (N.Y.Civ.Ct.1962); Kruglikov v. Kruglikov, 29 Misc.2d 17, 217 N.Y.S.2d 845, 846 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1961); State v. Potter, 197 W.Va. 734, 478 S.E.2d 742, 755 n. 23 (1996) (dicta); see generally Mitchell, 71 Minn.......