From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fritz v. Fritz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 14, 1982
88 A.D.2d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Opinion

May 14, 1982

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Houston, J.

Present — Hancock, Jr., J.P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, with costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: The record in this case amply supports plaintiff's cause of action for divorce based upon cruel and inhuman treatment. Although the wife's testimony concerning the husband's admissions of adultery is inadmissible to prove the adultery cause of action, it is admissible as part of the cruel and inhuman cause of action ( Poppe v. Poppe, 3 N.Y.2d 312). His behavior and admissions to the wife constitute cruel treatment to such a degree that the trial court abused its discretion in not granting the divorce. Similar activity on the part of a spouse has long been recognized by this court as sufficient proof of cruel and inhuman treatment to warrant granting a divorce ( Armstrong v Armstrong, 47 A.D.2d 800). The evidence here is not based solely upon the wife's testimony. The affair with one of the husband's paramours was corroborated by the daughter's testimony concerning the husband's admission of a Toronto liaison and by introduction into evidence of a Buffalo motel receipt. In addition, the husband's invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege when asked whether he had sexual relations with certain named women permits an adverse inference against him ( Matter of Gonzalez v. Dumpson, 46 A.D.2d 861; Bradley v. O'Hare, 2 A.D.2d 436, 442; Eastern Airlines v. Stuhl, 65 Misc.2d 901, affd 68 Misc.2d 629; Richardson, Evidence [10th ed, Prince], § 534, pp 526-527). Although it could affect the adultery cause of action, condonation is not a defense to cruel and inhuman treatment and we have so held in Ash v. Ash ( 53 A.D.2d 1039, 1040). Similarly, the husband's argument of provocation raised in this appeal is without merit. The matter is remitted to the trial court for the purpose of granting the judgment of divorce and for further proceedings on the issues of maintenance, custody, child support, and possession of the marital residence.


Summaries of

Fritz v. Fritz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 14, 1982
88 A.D.2d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)
Case details for

Fritz v. Fritz

Case Details

Full title:ANNE K. FRITZ, Appellant, v. JAMES D. FRITZ, Respondent

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

Date published: May 14, 1982

Citations

88 A.D.2d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Citing Cases

Volkell v. Volkell

June 25, 1984 In an action for divorce, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens…

Stolowski v. 234 E. 178th St. LLC

Initially, we recognize that the use of deposition testimony of an employee of a party is permitted for any…