Weiner v. Weiner
New York Supreme Court
899 N.Y.S.2d 555 (2010)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
In 2001, Edie Weiner (plaintiff) divorced Jay Weiner (defendant). The divorce decree contained a no-molestation clause, which prohibited Edie and Jay from disturbing each other. The divorce decree also awarded Edie ownership of the Weiners’ vacation home, which was in a rural community in Pennsylvania called the Hideout. Despite the no-molestation clause, Jay threatened and degraded Edie through calls and letters. In 2007, Jay threatened to break into the Hideout. Edie then obtained a three-year protective order prohibiting Jay from entering the Hideout. When the order expired, Jay moved into the Hideout. Although Jay had not contacted Edie, Edie petitioned for a new protective order to require Jay to leave the Hideout. The court held a hearing. Edie testified about Jay’s past abuse and threats and that she believed Jay had moved to the Hideout solely to continue his pattern of abuse. Jay testified that he moved to the Hideout because he enjoyed the wildlife and scenery and because he knew people in the community but provided no names. The court then considered whether a new protective order was warranted.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cooper, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.