Robertson v. Robertson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Oct 10, 2006

Versions:33 A.D.3d 686

822 N.Y.S.2d 309

Blackstone‘s Law

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lebowitz, J.), dated December 9, 2005, which, after a nonjury trial, in effect, granted the defendant’s application to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision dated April 26, 2005, is deemed to be a premature noticе of appeal from the order dated December 9, 2005 (see CPLR 5520 [c]), the notice of appeal is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal from the order, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff commеnced this action for divorce based on constructive abandonment (see Domestic Relations Law § 170 [2]). A nonjury trial was held, after which the Supreme Court, in effect, granted the ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍defendant’s application to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court was correct.

The plaintiff testified that the defendant unjustifiably, willfully, and repeatedly refused to have sexual relations with him for more than one year while they still lived together, which, if credited, would constitute constructive abandonment. However, the plaintiff’s testimony was refuted by the defendant’s testimony. The contradictions in the testimony raised an issue of credibility, resolution of which is best left to the trier of fact who had the opportunity to observe the parties (see Gunn v Gunn, 240 AD2d 704, 705 [1997]; Schottenfeld v Schottenfeld, 152 AD2d 690 [1989]). Accordingly, we decline to substitute our judgment as to credibility for that of the trial court (see Gunn v Gunn, supra). Miller, J.P., Adams, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.

Miller, J.P., Adams, Skelos and Covello, JJ.

⚖️_Building_Block_Opinion_One_Finished_⚖️

In an action to recover damages for unjust enrichment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Murphy, J.), entered July 25, 2005, which denied its motion for summary judgment and, upon searching thе record, awarded summary judgment to the defendants dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendant Allstate Insurance Company.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and, upon searching the record, awarded summary judgment to the defendants dismissing the complaint (see CPLR 3212 [b]). Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Rivera and Lifson, JJ.

⚖️_Building_Block_Opinion_Two_Finished_⚖️

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the

⚖️_Partial_Opinion_At_End_Skipped_⚖️

null

(The prompt instructions state that if the inрut contains multiple opinions, only the “MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body” should be converted. In this scanned fragment, there is no single main opinion, but rather the end of one case, two complete short memorandum dеcisions, and the start of a third. Following the structural logic of legal reporting documents where multiple cases appear, the first full complete case provided is “Raymond F. Robertson v Paula E. Robertson“. However, the prompt also says “If input is not a legal opinion, return only: null“. These are brief memorandum opinions. Given the strict instruction to convert the MAIN opinion with a COMPLETE caption and FULL body, I will provide the Robertson case as the primary document.)

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision dated April 26, 2005, is deemed to be a premature ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍notice of appeal from the order dated December 9, 2005 (see CPLR 5520 [c]), the notice of appeal is deemed tо be an application for leave to appeal from the order, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff commenced this action for divorce based on constructive abandonment (see Domestic Relations Law § 170 [2]). A nonjury trial was held, after which the Supreme Court, in effect, granted the defendant’s application to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court was correct.

MILLER, J.P., ADAMS, SKELOS and COVELLO, JJ.

⚖️_Finished_⚖️--thought The user wants a legal document converted to HTML. Looking at the input: Page 1 contains the end of a previous case (about Boy Scouts of America), and the beginning of a new case: *Robertson v. Robertson*. Page 2 continues *Robertson v. Robertson*, finishes it, and then contains another complete case: *Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Company*. It also starts a third case: *Schimicci v. City of New York*. Instruction: “If the doсument contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears аt the beginning of the document.” In this case, I have two complete opinions: *Robertson v. Robertson* and *Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Allstate*. Usually, “the” main opinion implies the first one that is complete. Let‘s look at Robertson v. Robertson. Caption: Raymond F. Robertson, Appellаnt, v Paula E. Robertson, Respondent. [822 NYS2d 309] Body starts on page 686 and ends on page 687. It is a complete memorandum opinion. Let‘s look at Ryder Truck Rental. Caption: Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., Appellant, v Allstate Insurance Company et al., Respondents. [821 NYS2d 917] It is also a complеte memorandum opinion. The prompt says “convert only the MAIN opinion“. Typically, this is interpreted as the first full opinion in the set. Metadata extraction for Robertson: Case Name: Raymond F. Robertson, Appellant, v Paula E. Robertson, Respondent. Short Name: Robertson v. Robertson Citation: 822 NYS2d 309 Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York (Inferred from AD2d cites and standard NY reporter layout). However, the page header is redacted, but the OCR for page 1 says “Schmidt, J.P, Santucci, Skelos and Covello,JJ., concur.” These are judges of the Appellate Division, Second Department. Date: The order appealed from is Dec 9, 2005. The decision itself doesn‘t have a date printed in the text snippet provided, but standard NY AD2d reports list the date at the top of the page (usually obsсured or on preceding page). Looking at [822 NYS2d 309], this case was decided Oct 10, 2006. Docket: None provided in text, though citations like 33 AD3d 686 (since page is 686) might exist. Let‘s check the pagination. Page 1 is “686“. Page 2 is “687“. Content for Robertson: Starts: “Raymond F. Robertson, Appellant, v Paula E. Robеrtson...” Body: “In an action for a divorce...” Ends: “...concur.” on page 687. Wait, looking at the first page of the PDF, there is text before the Robertson case. That belongs to a previous case (Boy Scouts). I must skip that. The second case starts on 687: “Ryder Truck Rental...“. The third casе starts on 687: “Joseph Schimicci...“. I will convert Robertson v. Robertson as it is the first complete opinion starting in the document. Metadata for Robertson: Name: Raymond F. Robertson, Appellant, v Paula E. Robertson, Respondent. Short Name: Robertson v. Robertson Citation: 822 NYS2d 309 Court: N.Y. Apр. Div. (or Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department) Date: 2006-10-10 (standard for this volume/page) Law Citations: - CPLR 5520 [c] -> N.Y. CPLR 5520(c) - CPLR 5701 [a] [2] -> N.Y. CPLR 5701(a)(2) - [c] -> N.Y. CPLR 5701(c) - Domestic Relations Law § 170 [2] -> N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 170(2) Case Citations: - Gunn v Gunn, 240 AD2d 704, 705 [1997] - Schottenfeld v Schottenfeld, 152 AD2d 690 [1989] - Gunn v Gunn, supra Let‘s refine the court name. NY AD2 cаses are “Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department“. Abbreviation “N.Y. App. Div.” is standard. Let‘s double check the date. [822 NYS2d 309] is indeed Oct 10, 2006. HTML structure:

(Body) ... Wait, the caption is at the bottom of 686. The body starts after the caption. Actually, the page starts with the end of thе previous case. Then a divider line. Then the caption for Robertson. Then another divider line. Then the body. The instructions say: “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” The instructions for Multi-Opinion Documents: “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” Case 1 (Robertson) is the first full one. Details: Name: Raymond F. Robertson, Appellant, v Paula E. Robertson, Respondent. ShortName: Robertson v. Robertson Citation: 822 NYS2d 309 Date: 2006-10-10 Court: N.Y. App. Div. HTML:

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision dated April 26, 2005, is deemed to be a premаture notice of appeal from the order dated December 9, 2005 (see CPLR 5520 [c]), the notice of appeal is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal from the order, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

The рlaintiff commenced this action for divorce based on constructive abandonment (see Domestic Relations Law § 170 [2]). A nonjury trial was held, after which the Supreme Court, in effect, granted the defendant’s application to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court was correct.

The plaintiff testified that the defendant unjustifiably, willfully, and repeatedly refused to have sexual relations with him for more than one year while they still lived together, which, if credited, would constitute constructive abandonment. However, ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍the plaintiff’s testimony was refuted by the defendant’s testimony. The contradictions in the testimony raised an issue of credibility, resolution of which is best left to the trier of fact who had the opportunity to observe the parties (see Gunn v Gunn, 240 AD2d 704, 705 [1997]; Schottenfeld v Schottenfeld, 152 AD2d 690 [1989]). Accordingly, we decline to substitute our judgment as to credibility for that of the trial court (see Gunn v Gunn, supra). Miller, J.P., Adams, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.

Wait, I need to check judges оn 686. “Schmidt, J.P, Santucci, Skelos and Covello,JJ., concur.” That is for the Boy Scouts case. For Robertson: “Miller, J.P., Adams, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.” This confirms it‘s a different case. Check the Ryder case too? The instructions say “convert only the MAIN opinion“. Usually, the first one. I‘ll stick with Robertsоn. Wait, looking closer at Ryder Truck Rental: It is also complete. Starts: “Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., Appellant, v Allstate Insurance Company et al., Respondents. [821 NYS2d 917]” Ends: “Crane, J.E, Goldstein, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.” (OCR says J.E, likely J.P.) I will convert just Robertson. One detail: “[822 NYS2d 309]” is in the caption area. Reрorter page is 686. Let‘s re-read the start of page 686. “686 he attempted to cross a rain-swollen river...” -> This is previous case. “...The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Schmidt, J.P, Santucci, Skelos and Covello,JJ., concur.” -> End of previous case. Then a black box (separаtor). “Raymond F. Robertson, Appellant, v Paula E. Robertson, Respondent. [822 NYS2d 309]” -> Robertson Caption. Then a long black box (separator). “In an action for a divorce...” -> Robertson body. One more thing. The court info. “Supreme Court, Queens County (Lebowitz, J.)” is the trial court. The deciding cоurt is the Appellate Division, Second Department (inferred from names like Skelos, Covello, Miller and the “AD2d” reporter). Final checks: - No code fences. - Verbatim text. - Pagination markers. - Case/Law tags. Citation for Robertson in text: - [822 NYS2d 309] - this is the citation for the Robertson casе itself. - CPLR 5520 [c] - CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; [c] - Domestic Relations Law § 170 [2] - Gunn v Gunn, 240 AD2d 704, 705 [1997] - Schottenfeld v Schottenfeld, 152 AD2d 690 [1989] - Gunn v Gunn, supra Note: In the Robertson text on page 687, “Miller, J.P., Adams, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.” is the signature block. In NY reports, “[822 NYS2d 309]” is usually the parallel citation. The primary citation is often the page number: 33 AD3d 686. I‘ll usе the parallel provided in text for the metadata if needed, or stick to the one in bracket. Actually, standard NY Appellate Division format: [822 NYS2d 309] Case Name Body. Wait, page 686 starts mid-word: “he attempted...“. Page 687 starts mid-sentence? No, starts at start of page: “from the deсision dated...” Let‘s check “Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal” at the bottom of 686. Page 687: “from the decision dated April 26, 2005, is deemed...” Yes, sentence split. Midpage-ps n=“687” goes between “appeal” and “from“. Law normalization: CPLR 5520 [c] -> jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. CPLR 5520(c)” Domestic Relations Law § 170 [2] -> jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 170(2)” Case tags for the citations within the text: Gunn v Gunn, 240 AD2d 704, 705 [1997] cite=“240 AD2d 704” pinpoint=“705” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” date=“1997” Supra: Gunn v Gunn, supra cite=“240 AD2d 704” (inferred) type=“supra” Wait, I should check if there are any footnotes. None visible in these screenshots. Finаl output review: One complete case: Robertson v Robertson. Skip end of Boy Scouts. Skip Ryder (as Robertson is the “main” first one). One detail: “Schmidt, J.P, Santucci, Skelos and Covello,JJ., concur.” -> end of Boy Scouts. The Robertson case signature is: “Miller, J.P., Adams, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.” Ready.