Avery v Caldwell

Avery v Caldwell 2010 NY Slip Op 00577 [69 AD3d 535] January 28, 2010 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Halina Avery, Respondent,
v
Molly Caldwell, Appellant.

—[*1] Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York (Colin R. Young of counsel), for appellant.

Kurland, Bonica & Associates, P.C., New York (Yetta G. Kurland of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland G. DeGrasse, J.), entered February 29, 2008, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment dismissing the third and eleventh counterclaims for statutory equitable distribution, spousal support and counsel fees, and denied defendant's cross motion for partial summary judgment on said counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties, who are of the same sex, had a long-term, significant relationship, but never married, so the Domestic Relations Law (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [2]) is inapplicable. In Hernandez v Robles (7 NY3d 338 [2006]), the Court rejected the equal protection and due process arguments that defendant now asserts. We note that the parties executed a living together agreement, providing for distribution of certain assets. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and RomÁn, JJ.