Justice Jeffrey Goodstein
Wife MC sought a temporary maintenance award. Husband RD filed an underlying divorce action in 2009 based on both parties' constructive abandonment. The court noted the parties were married for a short period of time, two to six months depending on which parties' version of events was believed. RD claimed several months after the marriage he came home to an emptied out apartment, while MC alleged husband left that marital residence. RD argued the parties had no further contact and he did not know where to locate wife after she moved out, and filed a 2003 divorce action. Yet, MC claimed husband moved into her Bronx apartment, moved out four months later, but the parties were in constant contact, and continued to live in such fashion until the filing of the 2009 action. The court noted the lack of documentation of contract between RD and MC led it to believe they had no contact for the five year period between filings of actions. It noted the action was "rife with inconsistencies, misrepresentations…," finding MC was currently a ward of the state, but noted the couple was still legally married. Thus, it ruled in the interest of public policy it should award temporary maintenance of $336 per month, the amount MC was receiving as public assistance, with retroactive arrears.
