Pesa v. Pesa

230 A.D.2d 837, 646 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8567
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 19, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 230 A.D.2d 837 (Pesa v. Pesa) 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
Pesa v. Pesa, 230 A.D.2d 837, 646 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated May 18, 1992, in which the provisions of a separation agreement were incorporated but not merged, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Leis, J.), dated July 7, 1995, which, inter alia, granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to terminate his obligation to pay maintenance.

Ordered that the order is aifirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in concluding that she had forfeited her right to maintenance because she had “remarried” as defined by the parties’ separation agreement. We disagree. It is well settled that the parties to a matrimonial agreement may condition a husband’s obligation to support his wife solely on her refraining from living with another man without the necessity of the husband also proving that she habitually holds herself out as the other man’s wife as Domestic Relations Law § 248 requires (see, Scharnweber v Scharnweber, 65 NY2d 1016, 1017).

Here, the parties’ separation agreement defined remarriage to include circumstances whereby the wife “habitually live[d] with an unrelated male, not her Husband”. The record provided adequate support for the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the plaintiff had “remarried” through habitual cohabitation with an unrelated male.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Joy and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Related

MASTROCOVO, COLLEEN v. CAPIZZI, JOEL
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011
Mastrocovo v. Capizzi
87 A.D.3d 1296 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Graev v. Graev
46 A.D.3d 445 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Stein v. Stein
261 A.D.2d 606 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Smith v. Smith
233 A.D.2d 830 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
230 A.D.2d 837, 646 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pesa-v-pesa-nyappdiv-1996.