You are here: / / Cognizable Counterclaim for Breach of Domestic Partnership Stated
,

Cognizable Counterclaim for Breach of Domestic Partnership Stated

In finding defendant had stated a legally cognizable counterclaim for breach of a domestic partnership agreement, the Fourth Department explained:

With respect to domestic partnership agreements, “New York courts have long accepted the concept that an express agreement between unmarried persons living together is as enforceable as though they were not living together . . . , provided only that illicit sexual relations were not ‘part of the consideration of the contract’ ” … .  Additionally, there is no statutory requirement that such a contract be in writing … .  We conclude that here defendant sufficiently pleaded counterclaims for breach of a domestic partnership agreement and that the court therefore erred in dismissing the fourth and fifth counterclaims … . Ramos v Hughes, 866, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

You might also like
Inconsistent Interrogatory Answers Do Not Support A Judgment.
PERSONAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON REAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A TAX FORECLOSURE WAS NOT ABANDONED BY THE OWNER OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED DEFENDANT WITH ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE LENGTH OF HIS SENTENCE SHOULD HE BE CONVICTED AFTER TRIAL AND ERRONEOUSLY TOLD THE DEFENDANT HIS PLEA TO SEX TRAFFICKING WOULD NOT MAKE HIM SUBJECT TO THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Fraud Action Based Upon Statements of Opinion Properly Pled/Negligent Misrepresentation Not Properly Pled–No Allegation of Privity or Privity-Like Relationship
PERIODS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION MERGE AND CANNOT RUN CONSECUTIVELY, ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE CORRECTED EVEN IF ISSUE NOT RAISED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).
THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED OR WAS COMMITTING A CRIME WHEN THEY BLOCKED DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WITH THE POLICE VEHICLE, WHICH CONSTITUTES A SEIZURE; PLEA VACATED AND SUPPRESSION MOTION GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THE ABSENCE OF A MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT BY THE DEFENDANTS, THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE ACTION ON THE EVE OF TRIAL “IN THE INTEREST OF JUDICIAL ECONOMY” BASED UPON PERCEIVED EVIDENTIARY DEFICIENCIES (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO GIVE THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL-EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION IN THIS ARSON/MURDER CASE REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Neglect Finding Based on Children’s Exposure to Bloody Domestic Violence... Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel Does Not Apply When Biological Mother Opposes...