From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maida v. Maida

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 25, 1994
203 A.D.2d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

April 25, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff dissolving the parties' marriage by reason of (1) cruel and inhuman treatment, and (2) the parties having lived separate and apart pursuant to a judgment of separation for a period of one or more years, and substituting therefor a provision dismissing the first and second causes of action asserted in the complaint; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiff summary judgment on her first and second causes of action for divorce. A plaintiff seeking a divorce pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 170 (1) "must show serious misconduct, and not mere incompatibility" (Brady v Brady, 64 N.Y.2d 339, 343). The defendant must have engaged in a course of conduct harmful to the physical or mental health of the plaintiff making cohabitation unsafe or improper (see, Meyn v Meyn, 119 A.D.2d 644; Tsakis v Tsakis, 110 A.D.2d 763). The ground of cruel and inhuman treatment does not authorize the granting of a divorce merely because a marriage is "dead" (see, Tsakis v Tsakis, supra, at 764). Here, the plaintiff has essentially alleged nothing more than that defendant refused to give her a divorce. Her allegations that his refusal is based on vindictiveness and an intent to hurt her did not rise to the level of cruel and inhuman treatment.

As to the second cause of action, the order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated June 15, 1983, which, inter alia, dismissed the plaintiff's prior action for divorce, cannot be considered "a decree or judgment of separation" such as would entitle the plaintiff to a conversion divorce pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 170 (5).

We have reviewed the remaining requests for sanctions and attorney's fees and find that they were properly denied. Miller, J.P., Lawrence, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Maida v. Maida

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 25, 1994
203 A.D.2d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Maida v. Maida

Case Details

Full title:BERYL MAIDA, Respondent, v. MICHAEL MAIDA, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 25, 1994

Citations

203 A.D.2d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
611 N.Y.S.2d 227

Citing Cases

Martin v. Martin

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the defendant's fifth counterclaim for divorce on the ground of cruel…