Maryon v. Maryon

60 A.D.2d 623, 400 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14594
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 19, 1977
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 60 A.D.2d 623 (Maryon v. Maryon) 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
Maryon v. Maryon, 60 A.D.2d 623, 400 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14594 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

In an action for a divorce on the ground of abandonment, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 27, 1976, which dismissed the complaint. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and judgment is directed to be entered in favor of plaintiff, granting a divorce. The parties were married in 1953. In 1975 the plaintiff husband commenced an action for a divorce on the ground of abandonment (see Domestic Relations Law, § 170, subd [2]). The complaint alleged that defendant had abandoned plaintiff in March, 1954. Defendant defaulted. Plaintiff testified at the inquest in support of his complaint. By a judgment dated September 27, 1976, the court found that plaintiff’s conduct justified defendant’s departure, and dismissed the complaint. In our opinion, plaintiff was entitled to a divorce on the ground of abandonment (see Giella v Giella, 55 Misc 2d 727; Bigelow v Bigelow, 62 Misc 2d 376). Defendant had the burden of pleading and proving the defense of justification (see Bigelow v Bigelow, supra). She never raised the defense and defaulted. Although plaintiff’s testimony disclosed the possibility of a defense to the action, he was entitled to judgment because he made out a prima facie case of abandonment and defendant did not plead nor prove the defense of justification (see Domestic Relations Law, § 211; Bigelow v Bigelow, supra). In an undefended matrimonial action there is no requirement that the plaintiff must negative any defense which might possibly have been raised by the defendant (see Figueroa v Figueroa, 66 Misc 2d 257). Hopkins, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Gulati v. Gulati
60 A.D.3d 810 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Gerteis v. Gerteis
44 A.D.3d 709 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
James v. James
13 A.D.3d 583 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Uzo v. Uzo
307 A.D.2d 1032 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Carpenter v. Carpenter
278 A.D.2d 695 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
McNair v. McNair
262 A.D.2d 1048 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Merrick v. Merrick
165 Misc. 2d 180 (New York Supreme Court, 1995)
Palin v. Palin
213 A.D.2d 707 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Pascarella v. Pascarella
210 A.D.2d 915 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Johnson v. Johnson
167 A.D.2d 954 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 A.D.2d 623, 400 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maryon-v-maryon-nyappdiv-1977.