Hammer v. Hammer
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs. This court accepts the fiudiug below,, that plaintiff husband, through long acquiescence, consented to a sex-limited relationship with his wife. It is notible that the husband neither demanded a renewal of sexual relations nor threatened to terminate the marital relationship because of the abstention. Indeed, although he alleged 10 years of abstentión, he conceded that he had no intention of ending the marriage until just prior, to quitting the marital abode in May, 1970.
In light of these facts of consent and…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Filippi v. FilippiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
- Breckinridge v. BreckinridgeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Nicholson v. NicholsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Frances G. v. Vincent G.New York Court of Appeals · 1988
- Lebensfeld v. LebensfeldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.