## Facts

- A husband sued his wife for divorce on the ground of adultery.
- The husband became suspicious and hired investigators to follow the wife.
- The husband told the wife she would be followed; she nonetheless met and continued a sexual relationship with the alleged paramour.
- Around the time of the adulterous conduct, the wife was under psychiatric care and was admitted shortly thereafter to a psychiatric hospital.
- The wife admitted the adulterous acts but asserted that her mental illness rendered her not responsible for marital fault.
- The wife’s psychiatrist diagnosed a schizophrenic-affective disorder and opined she could not distinguish right from wrong regarding her conduct.
- The husband’s psychiatric expert agreed the wife was emotionally disturbed but testified she understood the nature and quality of her acts and knew what she was doing.
- Hospital records described sexually aggressive behavior, which the court considered as background bearing on her mental state and sexual impulsivity.

## Issues

1. What level of mental impairment constitutes a defense to a fault-based divorce action for adultery.
2. Whether the wife’s mental condition at the time of the adultery negated legal responsibility for the adulterous conduct.

## Decision

- The court held that mental illness may be a defense to adultery in a divorce action only when the condition is so severe that the spouse cannot be treated as a responsible, rational actor with respect to the adulterous act.
- The court found the wife’s condition did not satisfy that threshold on this record.
- The court rejected the insanity defense and granted the husband a divorce on the ground of adultery.

## Legal Principles

- New York recognizes a mental-illness defense to adultery where the spouse’s mental disease or defect eliminates responsible volition or moral agency for the conduct.
- The existence of psychiatric diagnosis, emotional disturbance, or heightened sexual impulsivity does not alone excuse adultery; the impairment must be sufficiently extreme to negate responsible choice.
- In evaluating responsibility, the court may consider competing psychiatric testimony and surrounding conduct indicating purposive action, including continuation of the affair despite warnings.
- Standards developed for criminal responsibility and civil hospitalization may inform, but do not control, the matrimonial responsibility inquiry; the operative question is whether the adultery was attributable to a willing, rational actor.

## Conclusion

The court granted a divorce for adultery, holding that a spouse’s mental illness excuses adulterous conduct only when it is so severe that the spouse cannot be regarded as a responsible, rational moral agent as to the act; the wife’s proof did not meet that standard.


Anonymous v. Anonymous, 37 Misc. 2d 773, 236 N.Y.S.2d 288 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cnty. 1962)