People v. King

• Decision Date: 24 April 1969
• Citation: 59 Misc.2d 464,300 N.Y.S.2d 600
• Parties: PEOPLE v. Ralph KING, Respondent.
• Court: New York Family Court

Page 600

300 N.Y.S.2d 600

59 Misc.2d 464

PEOPLE v. Ralph KING, Respondent.

Family Court, Dutchess County.

April 24, 1969.

Charles W. Philipbar, Jr., Brooklyn, for respondent.

David Effron, Poughkeepsie, for Wanda King.

DECISION

JOHN R. HEILMAN, Judge.

The respondent herein was charged by information of John Henry Scribner, a police officer in the city of Poughkeepsie, with the crime of assault in the first degree on Wanda King, alleged to have been committed in the bedroom apartment of Bertha Carl, mother of Wanda King, at 217 Union Street in the city of Poughkeepsie, New York, on the 2nd day of April, 1969. The information charges that the respondent used a black-handled stiletto type knife to stab and cut 'the said Wanda Ann King numerous times on the back, left hand and kidney, causing serious physical injury to Wanda Ann King necessitating the removal of Wanda Ann King to Vassar Hospital for emergency treatment and admittance to that hospital in grave condition.'

By direction of the acting city judge of the city of Poughkeepsie, dated April 9, 1969, this matter was transferred to the Family Court for Dutchess County for determination as to whether or not this court would take jurisdiction.

On April 11, 1969, both the respondent and Wanda King were before this court and a hearing was held on said date at which Wanda King testified. The respondent, represented by the Public Defender who also represented him in the Poughkeepsie City Court, declined to testify.

The Constitution of the State of New York and Article 8 of the Family Court Act give this court exclusive jurisdiction over any proceeding concerning acts which would constitute disorderly conduct or an assault between spouses. People v. Johnson (1967), 20 N.Y.2d 220, 282 N.Y.S.2d 481, 229 N.E.2d 180, the charge in the instant case is one of assault in the first degree.

Section 813 of the Family Court Act provides for the transfer from criminal court to the Family Court of any complaint concerning acts which fall within the provisions of Section 812, and this matter has been transferred from the said city court to this court pursuant to said section. The Family Court has the authority to determine whether it will take jurisdiction or whether the proceeding should be transferred to a criminal court (Family Court Act, section 815), and if so, order the proceeding transferred to the appropriate criminal court (Family Court Act, Section 816).

At the hearing Wanda King testified that she had been the wife of Ralph King, identified him in court, and stated that they were married on June 10, 1967, that the marital domicile had been at 213 Smith Street in the city of Poughkeepsie, that he still resided at that address but that she resided at 217 Union Street in the city of Poughkeepsie, and that the parties were divorced in February of 1969 in an action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Dutchess, in which she was the plaintiff and Ralph King the defendant. The court had before it an uncertified copy of the divorce decree and findings of fact and conclusions of law in said action, but required the production of a certified copy thereof, which has since been furnished to the court. The judgment on default and the findings of fact and conclusions of law in said action are dated February 13, 1969, and attached thereto is an affidavit of service sworn to February 20, 1969, alleging service of said judgment and findings by mail on Ralph King at 213 Smith Street, Poughkeepsie, New York. The certificate of the Dutchess county clerk indicates that the decree and the findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed in his office on February 18, 1969. Wanda King also testified that Ralph King had showed her a paper which was like the paper which she had received after the divorce and which she believes to be the paper that accomplished the divorce, and that at the time he showed it to her, he said, 'we are divorced.' The inescapable conclusion is that these parties were divorced at the time of the incident in question and that both parties knew that to be the case at the time of the alleged assault in question.

The Court of Appeals has very recently considered the effect of a divorce in a situation similar to the instant case and the language of the court is very much in point in the instant case. 'Divorce does not and cannot, especially where there are children of the marriage, re-establish the parties in their former positions of legal or social independence. However, the surviving relationship is different in quality and extent from that existing during the marriage. By divorce, the parties have procured the dissolution of the special matrimonial or family considerations that would otherwise make the Family Court the appropriate forum for the resolution of disputes. The object of saving the marriage is gone. Moreover, it is no longer relevant that the same acts between members of the same family do not, generally, have the same causes or impacts, as between others, and therefore are not susceptible of the same modes of deterrence. Obviously, in the terminated marriage, the use of violence is no longer the symptom of a failing relationship capable of being salvaged, or made more tolerable by Family Court intervention. The action of the injured victim in filing a criminal complaint is extremely rarely a disguised, or misdirected plea for help in ordering or re-establishing a confused or mismanaged intimate family relationship. It is hardly, therefore, within the purpose of the new legislation that the Family Court have jurisdiction over criminal matters between divorced parties. In any event, such purpose should not be inferred.' People v. Williams (People v. Balassy), 24 N.Y.2d 274, 283--284, 300 N.Y.S.2d 89, 96, 248 N.E.2d 8, 13.

It was further ascertained through the testimony of Wanda King at the hearing that there was a boy born of this marriage, who was recognized by the divorce decree and custody of whom was granted therein to Wanda King with visitation rights to Ralph King at the residence of Wanda King from 10 A.M. 11 A.M. every Sunday, or, at her option, at such other place as was convenient to him. It further appears that there were occasions after the entry of the divorce decree in which the respondent went to the home of Wanda King at night and stayed overnight; that such visitations were not by invitation of Wan...