Weicker v. Weicker

New York Court of Appeals

Weicker v. Weicker

237 N.E.2d 876, 22 N.Y.2d 8, 290 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1415

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 18, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by49 cases

This text of 237 N.E.2d 876 (Weicker v. Weicker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Weicker v. Weicker, 237 N.E.2d 876, 22 N.Y.2d 8, 290 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1415 (N.Y. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this action, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Appellate Division dismissing so much of her second amended complaint as seeks: (1) compensatory and punitive damages for the intentional or reckless infliction of mental suffering and (2) injunctive relief restraining the defendants from holding themselves out as husband and wife and defendant Littell from assuming or using defendant husband’s name. Assuming that New York law now permits “ recovery for the intentional infliction of mental distress without proof of the breach of any duty other than the duty to refrain from inflicting it ’ ’ (Halio v. Lurie, 15 A D 2d 62, 66; see, also, Battalla v. State of New York, 10 NY 2d 237; Ferrara v. Galluchio, 5 N Y 2d 16, 21), strong policy considerations militate against judicially applying these recent developments in this area of the law to the factual context of a dispute arising out of matrimonial differences. To sustain the claim for damages would result in a revival of evils not unlike those which prompted the Legislature in 1935 to outlaw actions for alienation of affections and criminal conversation (L. 1935, ch. 263; Civil Rights Law, § 80-a, formerly Civ. Prac. Act, § 61-b).

The same policy reasons, which would deny an action for damages for the conduct complained of by plaintiff, should also operate to bar the request for injunctive relief. Additionally, “ [i]t is not the province of courts of equity to administer paternal relief in domestic affairs. As a matter of practical fact, such decrees cannot be enforced ” (Baumann v. Baumann, 250 N. Y. 382, 389).

[12]*12The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Chief Judge Ftjld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Keating, Breitel and Jasen concur.

Order affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

In this action, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Appellate Division dismissing so much of her second amended complaint as seeks: (1) compensatory and punitive damages for the intentional or reckless infliction of mental suffering and (2) injunctive relief restraining the defendants from holding themselves out as husband and wife and defendant Littell from assuming or using defendant husband’s name. Assuming that New York law now permits “ recovery for the intentional infliction of mental distress without proof of the breach of any duty other than the duty to refrain from inflicting it ’ ’ (Halio v. Lurie, 15 A D 2d 62, 66; see, also, Battalla v. State of New York, 10 NY 2d 237; Ferrara v. Galluchio, 5 N Y 2d 16, 21), strong policy considerations militate against judicially applying these recent developments in this area of the law to the factual context of a dispute arising out of matrimonial differences. To sustain the claim for damages would result in a revival of evils not unlike those which prompted the Legislature in 1935 to outlaw actions for alienation of affections and criminal conversation (L. 1935, ch. 263; Civil Rights Law, § 80-a, formerly Civ. Prac. Act, § 61-b).

The same policy reasons, which would deny an action for damages for the conduct complained of by plaintiff, should also operate to bar the request for injunctive relief. Additionally, “ [i]t is not the province of courts of equity to administer paternal relief in domestic affairs. As a matter of practical fact, such decrees cannot be enforced ” (Baumann v. Baumann, 250 N. Y. 382, 389).

[12]*12The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Chief Judge Ftjld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Keating, Breitel and Jasen concur.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 N.E.2d 876, 22 N.Y.2d 8, 290 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weicker-v-weicker-ny-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack