(DOWNLOAD) "Emily Pearson v. Samuel M. Pearson" by Supreme Court of New York ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Emily Pearson v. Samuel M. Pearson
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 11, 1970
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 61 KB
Description
[34 A.D.2d 797 Page 797] Section 200 of the Domestic Relations Law permits a spouse to seek a separation either "forever, or for a limited time".
But a separation judgment for a limited time will not be granted unless the complaining spouse establishes a useful purpose
therefor, such as a reasonable expectation of a reconciliation (Goldsmith v. Goldsmith, 151 Misc. 198; Seldin v. Seldin, 55
Misc. 2d 187; Roehder v. Roehder, 29 A.D.2d 753). Here the record establishes there is no reasonable possibility for a reconciliation.
Rather it appears that plaintiff's purpose is to frustrate, as long as possible, this State's policy, enunciated in subdivision
(5) of section 170 of the Domestic Relations Law, and as recently expressed by the Court of Appeals in Gleason v. Gleason
(26 N.Y.2d 28) and by this court in Schacht v. Schacht (32 A.D.2d 201), that when spouses are separated for two years, under
a judgment, the separation can be converted into a divorce by action of either party. In Seldin v. Seldin (supra, p. 188),
in a situation similar to the one at bar, a separation limited to less than two years was denied for that reason and a permanent
separation was decreed over the plaintiff's objection. To the same effect is Roehder v. Roehder (supra, p. 754). (Also, note
the editorial approval of Seldin and Roehder [ supra ] in 20 Syracuse L. Rev., 415.) Moreover, in connection with the propriety
of Special Term granting a permanent, rather than a limited, separation, see CPLR 3017, which empowers the court, once it
has jurisdiction of both parties and the action, to grant what it considers appropriate relief, irrespective of the demand
in the pleading. The direction for the sale of the marital home and the equal division of its contents and the proceeds of
the sale is a fair and sound exercise of Special Term's discretion, in the light of the record. Such sale is authorized under
section 234 of the Domestic Relations Law. It can avoid title and other marital litigation in the event of a future partition
action (cf. Field v. Field, 50 Misc. 2d 732). Plaintiff should obey the mandate of the court concerning the return of the
Rolls Royce automobile to defendant. However, the punishment ordered by Special Term in the event plaintiff fails to comply
with that direction and does not return this automobile, i.e., reduction of her alimony to the extent of $9,200 annually,
is, in our opinion, excessive punishment for such default -- especially since the record indicates that her intransigence
in this connection may be resultant from emotional distress concomitant to her marital difficulties. Thus we are eliminating
this decretal provision of the judgment, without prejudice to defendant's right to seek to [34 A.D.2d 797 Page 798]
 "Emily Pearson v. Samuel M. Pearson" by Supreme Court of New York ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}