Pfeil v. Pfeil

100 A.D.2d 725, 473 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17713
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 6, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 100 A.D.2d 725 (Pfeil v. Pfeil) 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
Pfeil v. Pfeil, 100 A.D.2d 725, 473 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17713 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: The allegations in plaintiff’s complaint are sufficient to state a cause of action for divorce or separation on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment and are distinguishable from those in Kennedy v Kennedy (91 AD2d 1200), which were dismissed for insufficiency. In affirming dismissal of the complaint in Kennedy, we noted that the conduct complained of did not constitute acts of cruel and inhuman treatment endangering plaintiff’s physical or mental well-being. Here, in contrast, the complaint alleges that defendant constantly initiates violent and vicious arguments and subjects him to “ranting, raving, vile language and threats”; that she throws household items about; that she drinks to excess at times and then becomes particularly argumentative; that she has refused to communicate with plaintiff for over five years and has refused to have sexual relations with him for the past five years. H Whereas it is true that mere marital disharmony and incompatibility are insufficient to establish grounds for divorce (see Hessen v Hessen, 33 NY2d 406; Buckley v Buckley, 93 AD2d 973), the acts here complained of constitute a “course of conduct” (Filippi v Filippi, 53 AD2d 658) which, if proven at trial, could be determined to endanger plaintiff’s physical and mental well-being so as to make continued cohabitation unsafe or improper (Domestic Relations Law, § 170, subd [1]). U Defendant argues further that the complaint should be dismissed because of plaintiff’s failure to set forth the dates, places and times of her alleged misconduct. The allegations in a complaint for separation or divorce must be pleaded with specificity in order to advise a defendant of the conduct of which he is accused (CPLR 3016, subd [c]). That section, however, should be flexibly construed so as not to preclude a meritorious action (see Siegel, NY Prac, § 216). Plaintiff alleges a continuous course of conduct over a period of years particularly stating the acts of which he complains. Although exact dates are missing, the allegations are sufficient to apprise defendant of the accusations against her and to enable her to prepare a defense. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolf, J. — dismiss complaint.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Moule, JJ.

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

Related

Maybaum v. Maybaum
89 A.D.3d 692 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Dodd v. Colbert
64 A.D.3d 982 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Tabib v. Tabib
56 A.D.2d 460 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Nolletti v. Nolletti
2 A.D.3d 1406 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Meltzer v. Meltzer
255 A.D.2d 497 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Steinberger v. Steinberger
248 A.D.2d 706 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Harari v. Harari
234 A.D.2d 421 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Hird v. Hird
170 A.D.2d 1049 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Faber v. Faber
159 A.D.2d 676 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
McKilligan v. McKilligan
156 A.D.2d 904 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Weiss v. Weiss
138 A.D.2d 482 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Ross v. Ross
137 A.D.2d 800 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Ahrend v. Ahrend
123 A.D.2d 731 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Chinnis v. Chinnis
119 A.D.2d 965 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Della Vecchia v. Della Vecchia
112 A.D.2d 189 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Lasini v. Lasini
111 A.D.2d 907 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Kapchan v. Kapchan
104 A.D.2d 358 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 A.D.2d 725, 473 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pfeil-v-pfeil-nyappdiv-1984.