Having read “Court Orders Trial to Consider State of Marriage Under No-Fault,” (NYLJ, Feb. 4) and the underlying decision in Strack v Strack, it remains incomprehensible, how “no fault” grounds, even when over-plead can result in a trial on grounds. While the no-fault statute’s relationship to other pre-existing laws and rules must still be tweaked, the intent of no-fault is beyond question. The statute requires a sworn statement by one party as to the irretrievable breakdown, not a demonstration of proof.
DRL 173, which permits a jury trial, does so where there are “issues of the grounds for divorce.” I submit that where there is no issue, as in “no fault,” there is no applicability of DRL 173 nor any right to a jury or bench trial.
