Rich v. Rich

New York Supreme Court

Rich v. Rich

126 Misc. 2d 536, 483 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1984 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3658

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 11, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 126 Misc. 2d 536 (Rich v. Rich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rich v. Rich, 126 Misc. 2d 536, 483 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1984 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3658 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

George A. Reed, J.

In this action for divorce, the defendant presented evidence that he received money as the result of an automobile accident. The sum of $9,800 was paid for pain and suffering sustained by the defendant and $14,000 was described simply as “no-fault”. No evidence was adduced concerning medical bills or lost wages. Compensation for personal injuries expressly is excluded from the definition of marital property. (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [d] [2].)

No-fault is a creation of the Legislature. It provides a system of benefits to be paid to qualified persons. (Insurance Law art 52.) Distinction is made between economic loss and noneconomic loss. (Insurance Law §§ 671, 5221.) Under Insurance Law § 671, noneconomic loss means pain and suffering and other similar detriment. Since the Domestic Relations Law and the Insurance Law use different terms, it is necessary to resort to judicial construction. Compensation for lost pay should be treated just the same as wages paid by an employer during the same period. Medical and related expenses incurred and reimbursed should be treated as other expenses incurred and paid. For that reason, I construe “compensation for personal injuries” in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (1) (d) (2) to mean “Non-economic loss” as the same is defined in Insurance Law § 671 (3). I hold that the noneconomic loss is separate property and that economic loss is marital property subject to equitable distribution.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

George A. Reed, J.

In this action for divorce, the defendant presented evidence that he received money as the result of an automobile accident. The sum of $9,800 was paid for pain and suffering sustained by the defendant and $14,000 was described simply as “no-fault”. No evidence was adduced concerning medical bills or lost wages. Compensation for personal injuries expressly is excluded from the definition of marital property. (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [d] [2].)

No-fault is a creation of the Legislature. It provides a system of benefits to be paid to qualified persons. (Insurance Law art 52.) Distinction is made between economic loss and noneconomic loss. (Insurance Law §§ 671, 5221.) Under Insurance Law § 671, noneconomic loss means pain and suffering and other similar detriment. Since the Domestic Relations Law and the Insurance Law use different terms, it is necessary to resort to judicial construction. Compensation for lost pay should be treated just the same as wages paid by an employer during the same period. Medical and related expenses incurred and reimbursed should be treated as other expenses incurred and paid. For that reason, I construe “compensation for personal injuries” in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (1) (d) (2) to mean “Non-economic loss” as the same is defined in Insurance Law § 671 (3). I hold that the noneconomic loss is separate property and that economic loss is marital property subject to equitable distribution.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 Misc. 2d 536, 483 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1984 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rich-v-rich-nysupct-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack