## Facts

- Jennie M. Oppenheim married her husband in 1884; they had one child and lived together until their final separation in 1917.
- By about 1913, the spouses had ceased living together as husband and wife.
- Martha Kridel, a widow, began a relationship with Oppenheim’s husband around 1913; their intimacy increased over time.
- In January 1919, Oppenheim’s husband and Kridel were discovered in circumstances showing they had committed adultery, which was conceded.
- The wife sued Kridel, alleging willful and malicious interference with the marriage, including adultery over a period of years, causing loss of her husband’s affection, society, aid, and support.
- The claim was framed as criminal conversation (adultery with a spouse) coupled with alienation of affections.

## Issues

1. Whether, under New York law as affected by Married Women’s legislation, a wife may maintain an action against a third party for criminal conversation and related alienation of her husband’s affections.
2. If such a cause of action exists, whether the proper appellate disposition was dismissal or a new trial.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held that a wife may maintain an action analogous to the traditional husband’s action for criminal conversation and alienation of affections.
- The Court modified the Appellate Division’s order to grant a new trial rather than dismiss the complaint.
- As modified, the Appellate Division’s order was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Married Women’s statutory reforms altered the legal relations of husband and wife sufficiently to remove the historic common-law barrier that limited criminal conversation and alienation-of-affections actions to husbands.
- A wife has a legally protected interest in marital consortium (including affection, society, aid, assistance, and support) that may support a tort action against a third party who wrongfully interferes through adultery and related conduct.
- When a case was tried and submitted to a jury under an incorrect view of the applicable legal rights, the appropriate remedy may be a new trial rather than outright dismissal.

## Conclusion

The court recognized that a wife, like a husband, may sue a spouse’s paramour for criminal conversation and alienation of affections under New York’s statutory changes to marital status, but required a new trial because the case had not been tried under the correct legal framework.


Oppenheim v. Kridel, 236 N.Y. 156, 140 N.E. 227 (N.Y. 1923)