Johnson v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Johnson

167 A.D.2d 954, 561 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14544

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 167 A.D.2d 954 (Johnson v. Johnson) 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

Johnson v. Johnson, 167 A.D.2d 954, 561 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14544 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court correctly found that plaintiff, who was imprisoned from August 1963 until December 1966 and from 1979 to the present, failed to prove his cause of action for a default divorce based on abandonment. One of the elements of such a cause of action is an unjustified separation (see, Bazant v Bazant, 80 AD2d 310; cf., Maryon v Maryon, 60 AD2d 623; Del Galdo v Del Galdo, 51 AD2d 741), and plaintiff cannot prove that defendant’s absence was unjustified because defendant has grounds for divorce against plaintiff (see, Domestic Relations Law § 170 [3]; 1 Foster, Freed and Brandes, Law and the Family New York § 6:20 [2d ed]). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J.—divorce.) Present —Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court correctly found that plaintiff, who was imprisoned from August 1963 until December 1966 and from 1979 to the present, failed to prove his cause of action for a default divorce based on abandonment. One of the elements of such a cause of action is an unjustified separation (see, Bazant v Bazant, 80 AD2d 310; cf., Maryon v Maryon, 60 AD2d 623; Del Galdo v Del Galdo, 51 AD2d 741), and plaintiff cannot prove that defendant’s absence was unjustified because defendant has grounds for divorce against plaintiff (see, Domestic Relations Law § 170 [3]; 1 Foster, Freed and Brandes, Law and the Family New York § 6:20 [2d ed]). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J.—divorce.) Present —Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 954, 561 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-johnson-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack