Court Opinion

ID: 6059413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 15:52:26.165553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:51:51.506190
License: Public Domain

Van Voorhis, J.
(concurring: .in,part).. i.i^lthopghip agrpenpept •\yi(h .the yeasonipg. pf .the dissenting Villafana v. Villafana (275 App. Div. 810) I am constrained t}y.the¡^jeqision ,iii¡¡tlya.t case to yote^tp; amrny^hp-dismissal pf.tlye cpmp^gipfpnfh'is actipp.lfpn appiijnpenf^of mqpriage. f¡Thpí^%r ^^«[¡pase^hpy^eypri apppays fo, gq, no, farther thaji, holtíipg vthat pprpyatiyepqpifaljlq relief will bo denied to a husband Avho.has aided and counspled,, p , ^opipn,,iiy,.obtaining a divorce from a ',lXqyq¡¡ 1Xt, hiny'fp¡^e'¡inyglipli at fbpd^p,, w^ep^sh^ .ipqyripd diiflpL-7,.l)iqtydthsta,n^^ ¡íja^p, is void," the" Villafana case folds fhpt(iihe ^qqnpoi;,qbtaip an affirmative declaration from a court, of equity, that it is. void under the familiar maxim that he does not. come into. equity ¡Mtoií, different t|png‘frpip^hplding^qt he is, estopped fp( ,(leny the validity of ;tHe carriage, ,ipqpposipg
This "distinction is mentioned in Fischer v. Fischer (254 N. Y. 463, 466) where, citing Kaufman v. Kaufman (177 App. Div. 162)>7appróyíhg-"it,‘ the’(Court'(of Áp"pepís.said*‘that ir was diétínguísháble1 in (any evení*11 in! ffiat' Here1 defendant A^r.--4. „__-lililí .1'ÍLJ.LL1Vt;¿<', n/¿. rí’i MSf « »7 '! does not come into court with demand for affirmative"relief! .He íñ'éfely híleles :plá'intiíf ’s máfn'a'g’e-ydílb Doli'nsky) déhíéh'páíntiff’s allegation concerning his own marriage with her and puts her to her»"'pro,ofeíto fshow.; that such»iallegation »is> "tiortéctí,¡tin every actions for séparatioií.dhéííprimary fabti to, be. proved is an existing marriage:.hptweepl,,,the pgyfjps.jj (Jones v. Jones, 108 N. Y. 415.) It was decided inrthe ^Fischer, case ( sij pfp,). .that SxSIMi .regardless- of whether heindefendanbíüe. reinv. ha¡di.,assisted Liber in obiaining 11 e r-in valid líen o divorce. - '¡-“i-w A «-'»»<$3 \,s M
the ins Unit %hf§ defendant wife has- obtained' judgment against ^plfeiMf&'for Jsbparatíón:bii’lh^^ sary condition to, maintaining a cansé of, action fqr separation is that tíiéfe',shall" have' been a Valid' marriage, whereas the ^ar(;iag;,e'f,fpt^pen ¡fhepg.!payfi.ps, ’is, .yffhout dispute, absolutely void. The judgment appealed from should be-modifiedffiy dis-r.>.issing • tiefendant’s counterclaims and, as so modified, should I’tn^n r'T" -" ‘ ír ’ sh r 19 "•! !,1: ? i1, ■ ;,in h o." <';■ »'*'■! bo affirmed:'