Zipparo v. Zipparo

70 A.D.2d 616, 416 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12037
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 14, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 70 A.D.2d 616 (Zipparo v. Zipparo) 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
Zipparo v. Zipparo, 70 A.D.2d 616, 416 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12037 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

— In a matrimonial action in which the parties were granted a divorce by reason of their having lived separate and apart pursuant to a written agreement for a period of one or more years, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 22, 1978, which, after a hearing, inter alia, denied her application to direct plaintiff to pay arrears in alimony pursuant to the separation agreement. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The separation agreement executed by the parties was incorporated, but not merged, into their judgment of divorce. The agreement provided that alimony payments to the wife "shall terminate upon the death or remarriage of the Wife or upon the Wife cohabiting outside the marital relationship and before divorce from the Husband”. In a rider to the agreement "cohabiting” was defined as "the regular living together of the Wife with a man for period exceeding six (6) months.” After conducting a hearing the court found that plaintiff had established that his former wife had been cohabiting as defined by the terms of the separation agreement and rider, and, accordingly, held that defendant was no longer entitled to alimony under the agreement. A cohabitation clause of this sort works a forfeiture of support, much like a fault divorce based on adultery, and therefore the party seeking to enforce such an agreement must establish cohabitation by clear and convincing evidence (cf. George v George, 34 AD2d 888). As measured against this standard of proof, the record fully supports the determination of the trial court. Therefore, the order should be affirmed. Lazer, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Graev v. Graev
898 N.E.2d 909 (New York Court of Appeals, 2008)
Konzelman v. Konzelman
704 A.2d 591 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1998)
Spector v. Spector
929 P.2d 964 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1996)
Curtis v. Curtis
132 A.D.2d 850 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Werblud v. Werblud
128 A.D.2d 194 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Sypek v. Sypek
130 Misc. 2d 796 (New York Supreme Court, 1986)
Baker v. Baker
486 N.E.2d 817 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)
Haddow v. Haddow
707 P.2d 669 (Utah Supreme Court, 1985)
Baker v. Baker
106 A.D.2d 483 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Brown v. Brown
122 Misc. 2d 849 (New York Supreme Court, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 A.D.2d 616, 416 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zipparo-v-zipparo-nyappdiv-1979.