Selakoff v. Selakoff

New York Supreme Court

Selakoff v. Selakoff

196 Misc. 544, 92 N.Y.S.2d 144, 1949 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2778

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 24, 1949

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 196 Misc. 544 (Selakoff v. Selakoff) 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

Selakoff v. Selakoff, 196 Misc. 544, 92 N.Y.S.2d 144, 1949 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2778 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Hofstadter, J.

In this action to annul a marriage the defendant interposed an answer and, though represented by counsel on the trial, did not actively defend.

I find that on the date of the plaintiff’s marriage to the defendant in this city February 28, 1948, the plaintiff was less than seventeen-years old. The defendant treated the plaintiff with contempt and brutality and refused to support her. In March, 1948, they were separated for a few days but were reconciled on the defendant’s promise to mend his ways. The reconciliation, however, was of short duration and on April 2, 1948, following another violent outburst by the defendant, the parties separated permanently. Thus, the marriage lasted a little over one month. Fortunately there are no children. The plaintiff prays for an annulment pursuant to section 7 of [545]*545the Domestic Relations Law, on the ground that she was under the age of legal consent, eighteen years. This fact is established. Under the statute annulment is in the court’s discretion. The defendant’s conduct shows a complete disregard of the fundamentals of the marital relation. In the circumstances, especially where there are no children, the plaintiff is clearly entitled to the annulment she seeks (Quinzi v. Quinzi, 261 App. Div. 929; Keegan v. Keegan, 209 App. Div. 74). Settle decision and judgment for plaintiff .accordingly.

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

Hofstadter, J.

In this action to annul a marriage the defendant interposed an answer and, though represented by counsel on the trial, did not actively defend.

I find that on the date of the plaintiff’s marriage to the defendant in this city February 28, 1948, the plaintiff was less than seventeen-years old. The defendant treated the plaintiff with contempt and brutality and refused to support her. In March, 1948, they were separated for a few days but were reconciled on the defendant’s promise to mend his ways. The reconciliation, however, was of short duration and on April 2, 1948, following another violent outburst by the defendant, the parties separated permanently. Thus, the marriage lasted a little over one month. Fortunately there are no children. The plaintiff prays for an annulment pursuant to section 7 of [545]*545the Domestic Relations Law, on the ground that she was under the age of legal consent, eighteen years. This fact is established. Under the statute annulment is in the court’s discretion. The defendant’s conduct shows a complete disregard of the fundamentals of the marital relation. In the circumstances, especially where there are no children, the plaintiff is clearly entitled to the annulment she seeks (Quinzi v. Quinzi, 261 App. Div. 929; Keegan v. Keegan, 209 App. Div. 74). Settle decision and judgment for plaintiff .accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 Misc. 544, 92 N.Y.S.2d 144, 1949 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/selakoff-v-selakoff-nysupct-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack