Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Alexander T. MOLLOY, appellant, v. Mary C. MOLLOY, respondent.
In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered July 11, 2005, which, upon the denial of his motion for summary judgment, determined that he failed to prove abandonment, and dismissed the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting sufficient evidence to establish the elements of abandonment and the absence of any issues of fact (see Friends of Animals v. Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 N.Y.2d 1065, 1067, 416 N.Y.S.2d 790, 390 N.E.2d 298; Caprise v. Caprise, 143 A.D.2d 968, 969-970, 533 N.Y.S.2d 622). In opposition, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact with respect to whether the plaintiff's offer to resume cohabitation was made in good faith (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 563, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718; Solomon v. Solomon, 290 N.Y. 337, 340-341, 49 N.E.2d 470; Bohmert v. Bohmert, 241 N.Y. 446, 452-453, 150 N.E. 511), thereby necessitating a trial. The defendant's contention that the plaintiff's offer to resume cohabitation was not made in good faith was not an affirmative defense that had been precluded by any previous order of the Supreme Court.
After trial, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiff's complaint, as he failed to establish the alleged abandonment (see Lyons v. Lyons, 187 A.D.2d 415, 416, 589 N.Y.S.2d 557; George M. v. Mary Ann M., 171 A.D.2d 651, 651-52, 567 N.Y.S.2d 132; Caprise v. Caprise, supra at 970, 533 N.Y.S.2d 622). Specifically, the Supreme Court determined that the plaintiff's offer to resume cohabitation with the defendant, made only through counsel during the course of an earlier proceeding and without any follow-up effort, was not a good-faith offer, thereby warranting a dismissal of the complaint (see Gleckman v. Kaplan, 215 A.D.2d 527, 528, 626 N.Y.S.2d 549).
The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit or have been rendered academic.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 24, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)