Nicholson v. Nicholson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nicholson v. Nicholson

87 A.D.2d 645, 449 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15974

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

DecidedMarch 29, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 87 A.D.2d 645 (Nicholson v. Nicholson) 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

Nicholson v. Nicholson, 87 A.D.2d 645, 449 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15974 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.), dated May 21,1981, as dismissed his complaint, which sought a divorce on the ground of constructive abandonment. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. Special Term properly dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate at the trial that he did not consent to the failure of himself and his wife to engage in sexual relations for a period of more than seven years. His own testimony revealed that following the incident of July 4, 1973, during which the defendant refused to have sexual relations with him, he never asked her to have sexual relations with him again. Accordingly, the plaintiff has failed to support his claim that the defendant constructively abandoned him (see Hammer v Hammer, 41 AD2d 831, affd 34 NY2d 545; Solomon v Solomon, 290 NY 337; see, also, De Angelis v De Angelis, 54 AD2d 1088; Levy v Levy, 53 AD2d 833; Rossiter v Rossiter, 92 Mise 2d 342). Weinstein, J. P., O’Connor, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.), dated May 21,1981, as dismissed his complaint, which sought a divorce on the ground of constructive abandonment. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. Special Term properly dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate at the trial that he did not consent to the failure of himself and his wife to engage in sexual relations for a period of more than seven years. His own testimony revealed that following the incident of July 4, 1973, during which the defendant refused to have sexual relations with him, he never asked her to have sexual relations with him again. Accordingly, the plaintiff has failed to support his claim that the defendant constructively abandoned him (see Hammer v Hammer, 41 AD2d 831, affd 34 NY2d 545; Solomon v Solomon, 290 NY 337; see, also, De Angelis v De Angelis, 54 AD2d 1088; Levy v Levy, 53 AD2d 833; Rossiter v Rossiter, 92 Mise 2d 342). Weinstein, J. P., O’Connor, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.2d 645, 449 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicholson-v-nicholson-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack