Anonymous v. Anonymous
37 Misc.2d 773, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2111, 236 N.Y.S.2d 288 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In New York, a spouse asserting mental condition as a defense to charges of infidelity in a divorce action bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that their mental state rendered them incompetent and irresponsible for the acts charged.
Facts:
- The Defendant had been under the care of her psychiatrist since September 1960.
- Prior to the specific incident of infidelity, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant, in the presence of her psychiatrist, that he intended to have her followed due to previous instances of infidelity.
- Three days before the planned rendezvous, the Defendant discussed it with her psychiatrist, stating she had attempted to dissuade her paramour but felt compelled to proceed with the meeting.
- Plaintiff's investigators discovered the Defendant with another man in a hotel room.
- A few days after the incident, the Defendant was hospitalized at Meadowbrook.
- The Defendant submitted an affidavit on February 26, 1962, detailing her problems with her parents and the Plaintiff, and stating she felt a need to prove herself as a woman after a hysterectomy.
- The Defendant was present in the courthouse during the trial but did not testify or enter the courtroom.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff initiated a divorce action against Defendant in the New York Supreme Court, Special Term, alleging infidelity.
- Defendant filed a separate defense, claiming she was suffering from mental and emotional disorders that made her incompetent and irresponsible for the actions charged in the complaint.
- The case proceeded to trial before Justice Bernard S. Meyer in the New York Supreme Court, a court of first instance.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant in a divorce action successfully establish a mental condition defense to charges of infidelity by presenting conflicting expert testimony and circumstantial evidence that fails to preponderate over the plaintiff's evidence of awareness and intent, especially when the defendant declines to testify?
Opinions:
Majority - Bernard S. Meyer, J.
No, the defendant did not successfully establish a mental condition defense to the charges of infidelity because she failed to sustain her burden of proving, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that she was incompetent and irresponsible for her actions. New York law places the burden of proving a mental condition defense on the defendant, who must overcome the presumption of sanity. The court considered conflicting expert testimony: the defendant's psychiatrist diagnosed her as schizophrenic-affective type and opined she was unable to control her actions or distinguish right from wrong at the time of the incident, while the plaintiff's psychiatrist believed she was sufficiently intact to use ordinary standards of right and wrong and was likely lying to evade discussion. The court also weighed circumstantial evidence, including the defendant's reaction when caught, her detailed affidavit, and her failure to testify. The court found inconsistencies in the defendant's explanations for her behavior (e.g., getting even with her father/plaintiff versus proving herself a woman, and homosexual overtures), concluding these were "afterthoughts contrived by defendant to escape the consequences." Without the defendant's testimony to assess her credibility firsthand, the court chose between the experts' views based on their consistency with the evidence as a whole and found the defendant's evidence insufficient to meet her burden of proof.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the significant challenge of successfully asserting a mental condition defense in New York divorce proceedings, particularly concerning infidelity. It emphasizes that the burden of proof rests squarely on the defendant to overcome the presumption of sanity with a preponderance of credible evidence. The court's decision highlights the critical role of the defendant's credibility and the potential for a defense to be undermined by inconsistencies in explanations or the absence of the defendant's direct testimony. While the court discussed various standards for mental responsibility (M'Naghten, Durham-Carter), it ultimately declined to choose one, finding the defendant's evidence insufficient under any potential standard, suggesting a practical, fact-intensive approach where a lack of persuasive evidence regarding genuine incompetence will be fatal to the defense.
