Summary
In Scharnweber v. Scharnweber (105 A.D.2d 1080, affd 65 N.Y.2d 1016, supra), the Fourth Department held that the record did not support a finding of "living together", because the individual did not share household expenses or a bedroom and did not function as an economic unit.
Summary of this case from Salas v. SalasOpinion
November 7, 1984
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Ricotta, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Schnepp, JJ.
Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Special Term erred in relieving Karl Scharnweber of his obligation to pay alimony to Margaret Scharnweber. The court found that an unrelated male was living in the former marital residence in violation of an agreement incorporated in the divorce decree. The record does not support the court's finding. On the contrary, the evidence established that they do not share household expenses or a bedroom and do not function as an economic unit (see Brown v Brown, 122 Misc.2d 849; Kaplan v Kaplan, 186 Conn. 387; cf. Northrup v Northrup, 43 N.Y.2d 566). Accordingly, the order is reversed and the matter remitted for a determination of the accrued support to which Margaret Scharnweber is entitled.