Legal Opinion · Dissent

Fairley v. Fairley

New York Court of Appeals

Decided April 2, 1981Published

1DissentMeyer, J.

Because in my view the majority misconceives the meaning and purpose of the words “substantially performed” as used in subdivision (6) of section 170 of the Domestic Relations Law and misapplies the rules governing summary judgment, I respectfully dissent.

The legislative policy not to continue so-called “dead marriages” having been conditioned by the requirement; that “satisfactory proof has been submitted by the plaintiff that he or she has substantially performed all the terms and conditions of such agreement”, summary judgment awarding a conversion divorce is impermissible unless…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Sylofski v. SylofskiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1975
  2. Timmins v. TimminsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1975

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API