Traylor v. Traylor

Decision Date18 February 1957
CitationTraylor v. Traylor, 159 N.Y.S.2d 818, 3 A.D.2d 727 (N.Y. App. Div. 1957)
PartiesRae TRAYLOR, Respondent, v. Rudolph TRAYLOR, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

John T. Doles, New York City, for appellant.

Harvey Kay Mackler, New York City, for respondent.

Before NOLAN, P. J., and BELDOCK, MURPHY, UGHETTA and KLEINFELD, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action for separation by a wife on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment, nonsupport and abandonment, the appeal is from a judgment granting a separation on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment, and other relief.

Judgment modified on the law and the facts by deleting from the first decretal paragraph the words 'cruel and inhuman treatment' and by substituting therefor the words 'nonsupport and abandonment'. As so modified, judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact insofar as they may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein.

In our opinion the proof does not support a finding of cruel and inhuman treatment but would support findings of abandonment and nonsupport.

The only proof of cruel and inhuman treatment was name calling, bickering, threats, and refusal to cohabit. There was no proof that respondent was made ill as a result thereof. Such conduct does not constitute cruel and inhuman treatment.

The proof establishes (1) that appellant had not supported respondent for about one year prior to the trial, which was held in April, 1955, (2) that he left the marital home in May, 1954 and has not since lived with respondent, (3) that appellant, for some time prior to May, 1954, refused to cohabit with respondent, cf. Mirizio v. Mirizio, 242 N.Y. 74, 150 N.E. 605, 44 A.L.R. 714; Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 205 Misc. 584, 798, 130 N.Y.S.2d 762, and (4) that appellant has rejected respondent's offer to return to him, Aghnides v. Aghnides, 308 N.Y. 530, 127 N.E.2d 323; Solomon v. Solomon, 290 N.Y. 337, 49...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
16 cases
  • Tausik v. Tausik
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • September 17, 1962
    ...(Solomon v. Solomon, 290 N.Y. 337, 49 N.E.2d 470, supra; Pearson v. Pearson, 230 N.Y. 141, 148, 129 N.E. 349, 351; Traylor v. Traylor, 3 A.D.2d 727, 159 N.Y.S.2d 818). In the case at bar, there was no proof that the prior suit and its discontinuance adversely affected the plaintiff physical......
  • Hessen v. Hessen
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 21, 1974
    ...v. Smith, 273 N.Y. 380, 383--384, 7 N.E.2d 272, 273--274; Pearson v. Pearson, 230 N.Y. 141, 146, 129 N.E. 349, 350; Traylor v. Traylor, 3 A.D.2d 727, 159 N.Y.S.2d 818; Avdoyan v. Avdoyan, 265 App.Div. 763, 766, 40 N.Y.S.2d 665, One of the five grounds for divorce added in 1966 was '(1) The ......
  • Mante v. Mante
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 27, 1970
    ...and even recent cases (Solomon v. Solomon, 290 N.Y. 337, 49 N.E.2d 470; Pearson v. Pearson, 230 N.Y. 141, 129 N.E. 349; Traylor v. Traylor, 3 A.D.2d 727, 159 N.Y.S.2d 818; Avodyan v. Avdoyan, 265 App.Div. 763, 40 N.Y.S.2d 665; Tower v. Tower, 134 App.Div. 670, 119 N.Y.S. False accusations o......
  • Becker v. Becker
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • November 23, 1972
    ...coupled with defendant's admitted surveillance of the plaintiff, have seriously affected plaintiff's health. (See Traylor v. Traylor, 3 A.D.2d 727, 159 N.Y.S.2d 818; Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 28 Misc.2d 922, 216 N.Y.S.2d 330.) The court in Avdoyan v. Avdoyan (265 App.Div. 763, 764, 40 N.Y.S.2......
  • Get Started for Free