The following excerpt is from Riefberg's Estate, Matter of, 446 N.E.2d 424, 459 N.Y.S.2d 739, 58 N.Y.2d 134 (N.Y. 1983):
In our own analysis, the threshold issue of abandonment poses no particular problem. It is axiomatic that, to challenge a spouse's right of election on this account, more must be shown than a mere departure from the marital abode and a consequent living separate and apart (e.g., Matter of Maiden, 284 N.Y. 429, 31 N.E.2d 889; Matter of Rose, 15 A.D.2d 983, 225 N.Y.S.2d 725). Sensitive to the reality that marital partnerships, no matter how knowingly entered upon "for better or for worse", still run the range of conflicts common to all human relationships, the law has long required that one who seeks to impose such a forfeiture must, in addition, establish, as in an action for separation, that the abandonment was unjustified and without the consent of the other spouse (Matter of Maiden, supra, 283 N.Y. at pp. 432-433, 31 N.E.2d 889; see Schine v. Schine, 31 N.Y.2d 113, 119, 335 N.Y.S.2d 58, 286 N.E.2d 449).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.