Seagriff v. Seagriff
| Court | New York Domestic Relations Court |
| Writing for the Court | GEORGE A. TIMONE |
| Citation | 195 N.Y.S.2d 718,21 Misc.2d 604 |
| Parties | Loretta SEAGRIFF, Petitioner, v. Alfred SEAGRIFF, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 22 January 1960 |
Page 718
v.
Alfred SEAGRIFF, Respondent.
Division, Central Trial Part.
Page 719
[21 Misc.2d 605] Charles H. Tenney, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Mathilda Miller Cuneo, Corp. Counsel, of counsel), for petitioner.Abraham J. Brill, New York City, for respondent.
GEORGE A. TIMONE, Justice.
In this proceeding by the petitioner for an order of support, it is conceded there was no ceremonial marriage between the parties. The pivotal issue is whether there exists a valid common-law marriage.
The petitioner and one Burker were married in May 1920, and separated seven months later. In 1921 petitioner and respondent entered into an illicit relationship and lived together as man and wife from then until 1957. During all of this time they were residents of the City of New York and lived there continuously except for yearly summer so-journs in Massachusetts where the parties lived on the premises of respondent's employer.
An action for a divorce, in which Seagriff was named as co-respondent, was duly commenced by petitioner's husband in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, in 1927. This resulted in an uncontested divorce decree in 1928, although petitioner and respondent did not learn of this decree until 1932. At no time did the petitioner seek a modification of the decree to permit her remarriage as she might have done after the lapse of three years from the date of its entry. Furthermore, it is probable that such an application would have been denied in view of the requirement of 'satisfactory proof * * * that the conduct of the defendant since the dissolution of said marriage has been uniformly good' (Domestic Relations Law, Section 8).
Assuming without deciding that the parties hereto at some later time intended and actually attempted to create a common-law marriage relationship between them in New York State, they are met by insuperable obstacles. Prior to 1928, petitioner was legally married to another. After 1928 she was at all times forbidden to remarry by the divorce decree and any remarriage by her in New York State in violation of the decree would be void ab initio (Amsterdam v. Amsterdam, Sup., 56 N.Y.S.2d 19; Polizzi v. Polizzi, 13 Misc.2d 309, 177 N.Y.S.2d 935). In addition, by virtue of Chapter 606, Laws of 1933, in effect April 29, 1933, common-law marriages could not thereafter be established in this State.
The fact that they were known as husband...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelly v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, No. 69 Civ. 3649.
...the like. Gall v. Gall, 114 N.Y. 109, 21 N.E. 106 (1889); Iania v. Islip, 8 A. D.2d 897, 187 N.Y.S.2d 166 (1959); Seagriff v. Seagriff, 21 Misc.2d 604, 195 N.Y.S.2d 718 (1960); In re Heitman, 154 Misc. 838, 279 N.Y.S. 108, aff'd, 247 App.Div. 855, 288 N.Y.S. 876, aff'd, 272 N.Y. 533, 4 N.E.......
-
Tausik v. Tausik
...legal contemplation can become a most perplexing problem--a mixed question of law and fact. We ought not confide a multiplicity of these [21 Misc.2d 604] questions to the Municipal Court as a mere incident of their jurisdiction in summary proceedings--these proceedings were not designed for......
-
Kelly v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, No. 69 Civ. 3649.
...the like. Gall v. Gall, 114 N.Y. 109, 21 N.E. 106 (1889); Iania v. Islip, 8 A. D.2d 897, 187 N.Y.S.2d 166 (1959); Seagriff v. Seagriff, 21 Misc.2d 604, 195 N.Y.S.2d 718 (1960); In re Heitman, 154 Misc. 838, 279 N.Y.S. 108, aff'd, 247 App.Div. 855, 288 N.Y.S. 876, aff'd, 272 N.Y. 533, 4 N.E.......
-
Tausik v. Tausik
...legal contemplation can become a most perplexing problem--a mixed question of law and fact. We ought not confide a multiplicity of these [21 Misc.2d 604] questions to the Municipal Court as a mere incident of their jurisdiction in summary proceedings--these proceedings were not designed for......