King v. King

109 A.D.2d 779, 486 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47267
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 11, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 109 A.D.2d 779 (King v. King) 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
King v. King, 109 A.D.2d 779, 486 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47267 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

— In a matrimonial action, plaintiff wife appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Widlitz, J.), dated March 9,1983, as (1) denied those branches of her motion which sought exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence and an order of protection pendente lite, and (2) granted defendant husband’s cross motion for exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence pendente lite.

Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the facts, with costs, those branches of plaintiff’s motion which sought exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence and an order of protection granted, and defendant’s cross motion for exclusive use and occupancy denied.

Plaintiff’s averments that she had been physically beaten by defendant were corroborated by uncontroverted medical evidence that she had incurred injuries of the type normally inflicted by physical force. Moreover, there was evidence that plaintiff was suffering from agoraphobia, which had been aggravated by physical and mental abuse. In light of this evidence, we believe that plaintiff has established that during the pendency of the action her safety requires her to have exclusive possession of the marital home and an order of protection (see, De Millio v De Millio, 106 AD2d 424; Rauch v Rauch, 83 AD2d 847; Binet v Binet, 53 AD2d 836). Hence, we find that it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny her that relief and to grant exclusive occupancy to defendant, especially since defendant’s allegations of misconduct on the part of plaintiff were virtually unsupported (see, Hite v Hite, 89 AD2d 577). Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Billips v. Billips
189 Misc. 2d 144 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2001)
Preston v. Preston
147 A.D.2d 464 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Goodson v. Goodson
135 A.D.2d 604 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Harrilal v. Harrilal
128 A.D.2d 502 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Tillinger v. Tillinger
120 A.D.2d 584 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Purdy v. Purdy
117 A.D.2d 659 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
109 A.D.2d 779, 486 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-king-nyappdiv-1985.