## Facts

- Husband and wife married in 1956 and had four children.
- By 1977 the husband lived at the marital residence only infrequently, and by late 1979 he no longer lived there.
- In 1981 the husband sued for divorce alleging constructive abandonment and cruel and inhuman treatment under N.Y. Domestic Relations Law § 170.
- The husband alleged physical attacks and threats (including being struck with household objects, threatened with a knife, and attempted choking) and persistent verbal abuse.
- The wife denied the misconduct allegations and counterclaimed for maintenance and child support but did not seek a divorce.
- The trial court granted the husband a divorce for cruel and inhuman treatment, describing the marriage as “dead,” and ordered support, custody to the wife for the remaining minor child, and exclusive occupancy of the marital home to the wife until emancipation with a later sale.
- The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the divorce, concluding the husband failed to prove cruel and inhuman treatment, and deleted the divorce and the direction to sell the home.
- The state’s highest court reviewed to address the standard for cruel and inhuman treatment in a long-term marriage.

## Issues

1. What conduct constitutes “cruel and inhuman treatment” sufficient for divorce in a long-term marriage under N.Y. Domestic Relations Law § 170(1)?
2. Whether the stricter long-term marriage standard associated with prior precedent remained controlling.
3. Whether a finding that a marriage is effectively over can substitute for proof of statutory cruelty.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the Appellate Division’s denial of a divorce.
- It reaffirmed that, in a long-term marriage, the plaintiff must prove misconduct that so endangers the plaintiff’s physical or mental well-being that continued cohabitation is unsafe or improper.
- It held the trial court erred by relying on the marriage’s “dead” status after largely rejecting or not crediting the specific cruelty allegations.
- It ruled that marital breakdown, separation, or incompatibility alone does not establish cruel and inhuman treatment under the statute.
- It stated that statutory reforms affecting maintenance and property distribution did not change the substantive grounds for divorce.

## Legal Principles

- “Cruel and inhuman treatment” under N.Y. Domestic Relations Law § 170(1) requires proof of serious misconduct; the assessment is stricter when the marriage is of long duration.
- In long-term marriages, the plaintiff must show conduct with a sufficiently harmful effect on physical or mental well-being to make continued cohabitation unsafe or improper.
- A court may not grant a divorce based on a general conclusion that the marriage is irretrievably broken when the statute requires proof of specific qualifying misconduct.
- Changes to rules governing maintenance and distribution of marital property do not alter the statutory elements required to establish a ground for divorce.

## Conclusion

The court denied a divorce because the proof did not meet the heightened long-term marriage standard for cruel and inhuman treatment, and it rejected the use of marital breakdown as a substitute for the statutory showing required by Domestic Relations Law § 170(1).


Brady v. Brady, 64 N.Y.2d 339, 476 N.E.2d 290 (N.Y. 1985)