Pajak v. Pajak
| Decision Date | 23 June 1982 |
| Citation | 452 N.Y.S.2d 381,56 N.Y.2d 394 |
| Parties | , 437 N.E.2d 1138 Casimir PAJAK, Respondent, v. Marlene PAJAK, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Subdivision (1) of section 170 of the Domestic Relations Law provides that a spouse may maintain an action for divorce on the ground of "cruel and inhuman treatment of the plaintiff by the defendant such that the conduct of the defendant so endangers the physical or mental well-being of the plaintiff as renders it unsafe or improper for the plaintiff to cohabit with the defendant." The issue on this appeal is whether the defendant's claimed mental illness may be asserted as a defense in an action of this nature.
The parties to this appeal were married in 1964 and in 1980 the plaintiff husband brought this action for divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. Defendant wife, alleging that her actions resulted from her mental illness, sought to assert her claimed affliction as an affirmative defense.
The trial court found that in 1979 the wife began to engage in certain behavior which was detrimental to the welfare of the plaintiff. She directly threatened her husband with physical harm on several occasions, threatened to assault him with dangerous instruments while he was asleep, and told others that the couple's two younger children were not the husband's children, but were conceived by artificial insemination. As a result of his wife's behavior, plaintiff experienced gastrointestinal disorders, sleeping difficulties and other maladies which affected his physical well-being, his vitality and his work.
Based on these factual findings, the trial court concluded that defendant wife's conduct endangered her husband's physical and mental well-being and rendered it unsafe for him to cohabit with her. In granting plaintiff a divorce, the court refused to accept the wife's assertion that her claimed mental illness constituted a legal defense to her husband's cause of action.
The Appellate Division affirmed, by a divided court, agreeing with the trial court that "while mental illness by itself would not constitute cruel and inhuman treatment an attempt to explain or excuse conduct otherwise evincing actionable cruelty because of alleged mental illness is unavailing in an action for divorce" (85 A.D.2d 923, 446 N.Y.S.2d 765). Because of the statutory framework, we must agree with this conclusion and hold that mental illness is not a defense to an action for divorce brought on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment.
Initially, we note that the jurisdiction of the courts to grant a divorce exists only by virtue of statute (Hoops v. Hoops, 292 N.Y. 428, 55 N.E.2d 488; Ackerman v. Ackerman, 200 N.Y. 72, 93 N.E. 192). The issue of whether mental illness is a defense in an action for divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment therefore involves strictly a matter of statutory construction.
As the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Joseph's Hosp. Health Center v. Department of Health of State of N.Y.
...to include a matter within a particular statute is an indication that its exclusion was intended" (Pajak v. Pajak, 56 N.Y.2d 394, 397, 452 N.Y.S.2d 381, 437 N.E.2d 1138). It is not for this Court or DOH to legislate by supplying an omission that would effectively broaden the scope and appli......
-
People v. Viviani
...District Attorney consent to, and retain authority for, the prosecution of the designated crimes (see Pajak v. Pajak, 56 N.Y.2d 394, 397, 452 N.Y.S.2d 381, 437 N.E.2d 1138 [1982] ["The failure of the Legislature to (include a specific requirement or limitation in a statute) must be viewed a......
-
Makhani v. Kiesel
...673 [2016] ; People v. Tychanski, 78 N.Y.2d 909, 911–912, 573 N.Y.S.2d 454, 577 N.E.2d 1046 [1991] ; Pajak v. Pajak, 56 N.Y.2d 394, 397, 452 N.Y.S.2d 381, 437 N.E.2d 1138 [1982] ). This principle has particular force where, as here, an expansive interpretation of the statute to include that......
-
People v. Kermit Gitenstein Found., Inc., Index No. 604475/16
...as an indication that its exclusion was intentional and not one of oversight. See, Statutes §§74, 240; See also, Pajak v. Pajak, 56 N.Y.2d 394, 452 N.Y.S.2d 381, 437 N.E.2d 1138 (1982); Bayshore Family Partners v. Foundation, 239 A.D.2d 373, 658 N.Y.S.2d 326 [2nd Dept. 1997].Page 28 The Not......