Coniglio v. Coniglio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coniglio v. Coniglio

278 A.D.2d 191, 717 N.Y.S.2d 262, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12605

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 4, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 191 (Coniglio v. Coniglio) 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

Coniglio v. Coniglio, 278 A.D.2d 191, 717 N.Y.S.2d 262, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12605 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), dated September 14, 1999, as, upon the granting of the defendant’s oral motion, made at the close of the plaintiffs case, to dismiss the complaint for failure to prove a prima facie case, dismissed the action.

[192]*192Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce on the ground of abandonment (see, Domestic Relations Law § 170 [2]). Contrary to his contention, the Supreme Court properly dismissed his complaint for failure to prove a prima facie case. The plaintiff failed to present any evidence that he made a good faith offer to reconcile after his absence from the marital home. Therefore, he did not establish a cause of action against the defendant based upon abandonment (see, Gleckman v Kaplan, 215 AD2d 527; Butts v Butts, 50 AD2d 584).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J. P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a divorce, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), dated September 14, 1999, as, upon the granting of the defendant’s oral motion, made at the close of the plaintiffs case, to dismiss the complaint for failure to prove a prima facie case, dismissed the action.

[192]*192Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce on the ground of abandonment (see, Domestic Relations Law § 170 [2]). Contrary to his contention, the Supreme Court properly dismissed his complaint for failure to prove a prima facie case. The plaintiff failed to present any evidence that he made a good faith offer to reconcile after his absence from the marital home. Therefore, he did not establish a cause of action against the defendant based upon abandonment (see, Gleckman v Kaplan, 215 AD2d 527; Butts v Butts, 50 AD2d 584).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J. P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 191, 717 N.Y.S.2d 262, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coniglio-v-coniglio-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack