Northrup v. Northrup
| Decision Date | 28 May 1976 |
| Citation | 52 A.D.2d 1093,384 N.Y.S.2d 319 |
| Parties | Anna NORTHRUP, Appellant, v. Ray A. NORTHRUP, Sr., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Solin & Polito, Richard F. Anderson, Rochester, for appellant.
Johnson, Reif & Mullan, John A. Titus, Rochester, for respondent.
Before MOULE, J.P., and CARDAMONE, SIMONS, MAHONEY and DILLON, JJ.
In this matrimonial case the wife took up residence with a paramour on the day the decree was entered divorcing her from her former husband. She and the paramour shared a bedroom in the latter's apartment and ate meals together. Both worked but she did the laundry and some of the cooking. With the exception of occasional food purchases, he paid all the bills. When her former husband learned of this arrangement he ceased making alimony payments. She moved to have him held in contempt and he cross-moved to have alimony provisions stricken from the divorce decree. Both motions were granted by Supreme Court, Monroe County. Only the wife has appealed.
Section 248 of the Domestic Relations Law gives the court the discretionary authority to eliminate alimony provisions from a divorce decree 'upon proof that the wife is habitually living with another man and holding herself out as his wife.' Here the wife admits living with another man but denies that there was sufficient proof that she held herself out as his wife. We think that there was. Domestic Relations Law, section 248, does not require the husband to prove that his former wife made affirmative representations to third parties that she and her paramour were married. The fact that they lived together in what might reasonably be considered a marital relationship is sufficient. Under these circumstances, we shall not disturb the court's finding and its use of discretion (see, Krawczuk v. Krawczuk, 49 A.D.2d 1003, 374 N.Y.S.2d 70).
Order unanimously affirmed with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanseri v. Sanseri
...what might be reasonably considered a marital relationship is sufficient to satisfy the statutory predicate.” Northrup v. Northrup, 52 A.D.2d 1093, 384 N.Y.S.2d 319 (4th Dept.1976). The Court of Appeals, in a 5–2 decision, reversed, holding that the issue of maintenance is purely one of sta......
-
Sanseri v. Sanseri
...what might be reasonably considered a marital relationship is sufficient to satisfy the statutory predicate.” Northrup v. Northrup, 52 A.D.2d 1093, 384 N.Y.S.2d 319 (4th Dept.1976).The Court of Appeals, in a 5–2 decision, reversed, holding that the issue of maintenance is purely one of stat......
-
Pattberg v. Pattberg
...supra); Stern v. Stern, supra; Krawczuk v. Krawczuk, 49 A.D.2d 1003, 374 N.Y.S.2d 70 (4th Dep't 1975); Northrup v. Northrup, 52 A.D.2d 1093, 384 N.Y.S.2d 319 (4th Dep't 1976), rev. 43 N.Y.2d 566, 402 N.Y.S.2d 997, 373 N.E.2d 1221 (1978). The second element, "living with", involves the chara......
-
Anonymous, Matter of
...any New York Court of Appeals case setting forth any guidelines. The court is impressed with the decision in Northrup v. Northrup, 52 A.D.2d 1093, 384 N.Y.S.2d 319 (4th Dept. 1976), wherein the court "Domestic Relations Law, Section 248, does not require the husband to prove that his former......