Case ID: nys_154/html/0107-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BENEDICT, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LAU v. LAU.
    (Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County.
    June 20, 1914.)
    Marriage @=>50—Evidence.
    In an action for separation, admissions by the> plaintiff wife that before marriage to defendant she celebrated a ceremonial marriage with another man from whom she never obtained a divorce, although she did not live with him, is not, where she lived with defendant many years, sufficient to show the nullity of her marriage with defendant, and defeat an action for separation.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Marriage, Cent. Dig. §§ 79-89; Dec. Dig. @=>50.]
    Action for separation by one Lau against one Lau. On motion to dismiss complaint. Motion denied.
    See, also, 156 App. Div. 912, 141 N. Y. Supp. 1128.
    Charles H. McCarty, of New York City, for plaintiff.
    Thomas C. Hughes, of Brooklyn, for defendant.
   BENEDICT, J.

In this action f,or a separation'plaintiff admits that prior to her marriage with the defendant she went through a marriage ceremony with another man, with whom, she testifies, she never lived, and from whom she has not obtained a divorce. Subsequently the defendant married her with full knowledge, as she testifies, of the circumstances above recited, and she thereafter lived with him for many years, and bore him four children, most, of whom are of full age. The admissions of the defendant are not sufficient, in my opinion, that the prior marriage was valid, and it does not therefore constitute a bar to the maintenance of this action. Matter of Meehan, 150 App. Div. 681, 135 N. Y. Supp. 723; Matter of Grande, 80 Misc. Rep. 450, 141 N. Y. Supp. 535.

The motion to dismiss the complaint is denied, and I will hear the defendant’s evidence on Saturday, June 27, 1914, at 10 o’clock a. m. The defendant will, of course, be at liberty to introduce proof to show that at the time he married plaintiff she was the lawful wife of another. All that I now hold is that the evidence heretofore adduced is not sufficient for that purpose.