ALBANY — In a ruling expected to send other alimony disputes back to trial courts for clarification, the New York Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday there’s no fixed definition of “cohabitation,” concluding it depends on what a couple meant in their separation and divorce agreements.
In a 1997 divorce, Lawrence Graev agreed to make $120,000 maintenance payments annually to Linda Graev for 12 years or until she died, remarried or cohabited with someone else for “60 substantially consecutive days.”
A midlevel court had ruled cohabitation requires “sharing of finances” and Linda Graev didn’t do that with a man who stayed at her Connecticut summer home after the divorce.
New York’s top court ruled 4-3 Tuesday that cohabitation definitions “bring to mind a variety of physical, emotional and material factors ... depending on the parties’ intent.”
The majority concluded that was ambiguous in the case of the Graevs and the court had never required shared finances to define cohabitation.
“Neither the dictionary nor New York case law supplies an authoritative or ’plain’ meaning,” Judge Susan Phillips Read wrote.
Chief Judge Judith Kaye and Judges Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick and Theodore Jones Jr. agreed.
In a dissent, three other judges concluded Graev should now stop paying spousal support since his divorce settlement, under which his ex-wife received almost $2.5 million initially, was clear.
They said it was “undisputed” that Linda Graev and someone who owned a home near hers in Connecticut “spent virtually every day and night together for over 60 days from June through August 2004,” although each paid their own expenses, and their finances were not commingled.
“Because the cohabitation provision includes a specific time period together with the maintenance termination event, I believe the clause is unambiguous and there is no need to remit this case to Supreme Court for yet another hearing,” Judge Victoria Graffeo wrote. Judges Robert Smith and Eugene Pigott Jr. joined the dissent.
Myrna Felder, the lawyer representing Linda Graev, said her client now returns to the trial court to argue for keeping the support payments.
“There’s a tremendous group of people that are affected by this,” said Felder.
She said for 20 years, as the midlevel court concluded, the case law showed an economic element to cohabitation.
A midlevel court had ruled cohabitation requires “sharing of finances” and Linda Graev didn’t do that with a man who stayed at her Connecticut summer home after the divorce.
New York’s top court ruled 4-3 Tuesday that cohabitation definitions “bring to mind a variety of physical, emotional and material factors ... depending on the parties’ intent.”
The majority concluded that was ambiguous in the case of the Graevs and the court had never required shared finances to define cohabitation.
“Neither the dictionary nor New York case law supplies an authoritative or ’plain’ meaning,” Judge Susan Phillips Read wrote.
Chief Judge Judith Kaye and Judges Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick and Theodore Jones Jr. agreed.
In a dissent, three other judges concluded Graev should now stop paying spousal support since his divorce settlement, under which his ex-wife received almost $2.5 million initially, was clear.
They said it was “undisputed” that Linda Graev and someone who owned a home near hers in Connecticut “spent virtually every day and night together for over 60 days from June through August 2004,” although each paid their own expenses, and their finances were not commingled.
“Because the cohabitation provision includes a specific time period together with the maintenance termination event, I believe the clause is unambiguous and there is no need to remit this case to Supreme Court for yet another hearing,” Judge Victoria Graffeo wrote. Judges Robert Smith and Eugene Pigott Jr. joined the dissent.
Myrna Felder, the lawyer representing Linda Graev, said her client now returns to the trial court to argue for keeping the support payments.
“There’s a tremendous group of people that are affected by this,” said Felder.
She said for 20 years, as the midlevel court concluded, the case law showed an economic element to cohabitation.
Citizen
Hot Jobs
New! Off the Menu
The Citizens' Say
Post your comment - click hereThere are No comments posted.