Divorce Attorney NYC Fault Based Divorce Dismissed

The parties had maintained a marital relationship for approximately twenty years prior to the dispute.

Without prior discussion or notice, the husband packed his belongings, left the marital home, and severed all means of communication, including telephone contact, messaging applications, and social media.

For nearly a year, the wife had no information regarding the husband’s whereabouts until she was unexpectedly served with a divorce summons and complaint.

Where a party seeks a fault based divorce pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §170(1) through §170(6), the court closely examines whether the asserted misconduct satisfies both statutory and judicially defined standards.

In this case, the divorce attorney NYC structured the answer to establish that the plaintiff’s unilateral abandonment and subsequent conduct constituted the primary cause of marital collapse.

By doing so, the answer preemptively undermined the plaintiff’s attempt to attribute fault to the defendant spouse.

New York courts have consistently held that where a party seeks a fault based divorce under Domestic Relations Law §170(1) through §170(6), a spouse who is primarily responsible for the marital breakdown faces significant legal barriers to prevailing on such fault grounds.

The defense answer documented the husband’s unilateral abandonment of the marital residence, his prolonged and intentional communication cutoff, and evidence of extramarital involvement during the period of separation.

These facts established that the plaintiff, not the defendant, initiated and sustained the breakdown of the marital relationship.

The husband alleged that the wife engaged in mistreatment toward his immediate family members and asserted such conduct as grounds for divorce.

However, under New York law, mistreatment must rise to a level that renders continued cohabitation unsafe, improper, or seriously endangers the physical or mental well being of the defendant spouse.

The defense demonstrated that the wife had instead endured repeated verbal abuse and emotional harassment from the plaintiff’s family, resulting in documented psychological distress and clinical treatment, thereby defeating the plaintiff’s statutory claim.

The defense submitted communication records, photographic evidence, and third party statements indicating that the husband maintained an ongoing relationship with another individual during the separation period.

Medical records, psychiatric evaluations, and counseling documentation were also presented to establish the wife’s psychological harm resulting from abandonment and marital misconduct.

These materials reinforced the conclusion that the defendant spouse bore no responsibility for the marital breakdown.