Brown v. Brown

39 A.D.2d 540, 331 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4795
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 24, 1972
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 39 A.D.2d 540 (Brown v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brown v. Brown, 39 A.D.2d 540, 331 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Opinion

Order Supreme Court, New York County entered on January 17, 1972, denying defendant’s motion for an order severing the causes of action and counterclaims of the parties and denying her application for a separate trial of her second counterclaim, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, the motion granted and the claims, causes of action and counterclaims of the respective parties severed and a prior trial directed of defendant’s second counterclaim. Defendant’s second counterclaim seeks a divorce based upon the provisions of subdivision (5) of section 170 of the Domestic Relations Law and the fact that the parties have lived apart since a judgment of separation was obtained by this defendant in April, 1961. Adultery, which is the basis of the remaining cross charges of the parties, is not a defense to defendant’s second counterclaim. Said counterclaim can obviously be initially, expeditiously disposed of without prejudice to plaintiff who is free to raise questions relating to alimony even if his wife is successful. “ Where divorce follows separation—whether under * * * Domestic Relations Law (§ 170, subd. [5] [L. 1966, eh. 254]) or under prior law on the ground of adultery—the parties are before the court in a new and different proceeding, in which different relief is sought. Under such circumstances, the court is privileged to consider the question of alimony de novo [citing cases] ”. (Kover v. Kover, 29 N Y 2d 408, 413.) Concur ■— MeGivern, J. P., McNally, Tilzer, Eager and Capozzoli, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sterlace v. Sterlace
63 A.D.2d 450 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Miraglia v. Miraglia
54 A.D.2d 285 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Wilkins v. Wilkins
85 Misc. 2d 985 (New York Supreme Court, 1976)
Failla v. Failla
81 Misc. 2d 959 (New York Supreme Court, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 A.D.2d 540, 331 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-brown-nyappdiv-1972.