LeClaire v. LeClaire
| Decision Date | 31 October 1968 |
| Citation | 58 Misc.2d 41,294 N.Y.S.2d 334 |
| Parties | Roberta A. LeCLAIRE, Plaintiff, v. Lloyd T. LeCLAIRE, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Louis A. Breslerman, Brooklyn, for plaintiff.
In an uncontested action plaintiff-wife seeks a divorce pursuant to Section 170, subdivision (5) of the Domestic Relations Law as amended in 1968, which provides that an action for divorce may be maintained by a husband or a wife on the ground that the parties have lived apart pursuant to a decree or judgment of separation for a period of two years after the granting of such decree or judgment, and satisfactory proof has been submitted by the plaintiff that he or she has substantially performed all the terms and conditions of such decree or judgment.
Plaintiff obtained a judgment of separation from defendant in the Supreme Court, Kings County on January 6, 1965. The parties having lived separate and apart under the judgment for more than two years, and the plaintiff having substantially complied with all the terms and conditions of the judgment, the only question to be determined is whether or not subdivision (5) Chapter 700 of the Laws of 1968 applies to separation decrees obtained prior to September 1, 1966.
When the Divorce Reform Law was originally enacted the accompanying note to Section 15 (Laws of New York, 1966, Chapter 254) read as follows:
Until the act was amended by Chapter 700 of the Laws of 1968, there was an ambiguity as to whether it was the intention of the Legislature to exclude separation decrees obtained prior to September 1, 1966, or whether it was merely intended that no time shall be computed prior to September 1, 1966 so that no action could be brought until after September 1, 1968.
The ambiguity was laid to rest in light of the fact that the accompanying note to Section 15 hereinabove quoted was dropped from the new amendment, and subdivision (6) of Section 170, which governs the living apart ground for divorce based on a separation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adelman v. Adelman
...a legislative intent to construe that provision as retroactive.' (McKinney's Session Laws 1968, ch. 700, p. 2308; see LeClaire v. LeClaire, 58 Misc.2d 41, 294 N.Y.S.2d 334). With respect to the second point raised, this court is cognizant of other Special Term decisions to the effect that t......
-
Gleason v. Gleason
...held constitutionally valid in its retroactive application to "old" decrees in the following cases: LeClaire v. LeClaire, 58 Misc.2d 41, 294 N.Y.S.2d 334 (Supreme Ct., Kings, Heller, J.); Frischman v. Frischman, 58 Misc.2d 208, 295 N.Y.S.2d 70 (Heller, J.); Adelman v. Adelman, 58 Misc.2d 80......
-
Frischman v. Frischman
...against a spouse who was the successful litigant in the separation action against him. In the court's decision in Leclaire v. Leclaire, Sup., 58 Misc.2d 41, 294 N.Y.S.2d 334, granting a divorce to plaintiff-wife, there was no such problem, as the plaintiff therein had also been the successf......
-
Pergolizzi v. Pergolizzi
...in Beanland v. Beanland, 54 Misc.2d 1010, 283 N.Y.S.2d 890, and Yoli v. Yoli, 55 Misc.2d 416, 285 N.Y.S.2d 470; LeClaire v. LeClaire, 58 Misc.2d 41, 294 N.Y.S.2d 334; Frischman v. Frischman, 58 Misc.2d 208, 295 N.Y.S.2d The Legislature of this state after 150 years passed a law liberalizing......