In re Malloy
Opinion of the Court
This is an application for the appointment of an ancillary committee. The alleged incompetent was married in 1912 and lived with her husband in The Bronx until 1951. In or about November, 1951, the incompetent left the home in which they had lived and moved to California. There is no indication that the conduct of the husband would entitle the wife to a separation or divorce, nor was there a formal agreement or judicial decree of separation or divorce. There is also no showing- that the husband ever objected to his wife’s departure. He remained at the home, which was owned by the wife, until 1955. Until his death, he supported the wife and maintained her investments. The wife resided in a furnished apartment in California until the Spring of 1952, when she returned to New York to attend the wedding of a son. She spent that summer with a brother in Vermont, then stayed at the Bronx home until November, when she returned to California. In November, 1953 she again returned to New York, stayed at the Bronx home a few days, then moved to a hotel
The first and most important question is, was the wife domiciled in California?
Upon marriage, the wife acquires her husband’s domicile by operation of law, and thereafter her domicile ordinarily follows her husband’s, except that under some circumstances of marital misconduct she may establish a separate domicile (Matter of Daggett, 255 N. Y. 243). It may be that a husband and wife can agree that she maintain a separate domicile or that the husband may consent to such change of domicile. However, to effect a change of domicile there must be a change of residence coupled with the intention to abandon the former domicile and acquire the new one as the sole domicile (Matter of Trowbridge, 266 N. Y. 283, 289). Once domiciled, the presumption is that it continues until the contrary is shown, and the party asserting that there has been a change of domicile has the burden of proving it (Matter of Newcomb, 192 N. Y. 238, 250).
On the papers before the court the petitioner has failed to sustain this burden, having failed to establish either justification for, or assent to a change of domicile. Accordingly, the petitioner having failed to show that the alleged incompetent changed her domicile to California, this motion for an ancillary committee must be denied (Matter of Cline, 283 App. Div. 1011).
However, the denial of the motion for appointment of an ancillary committee under section 1363 of the Civil Practice Act does not preclude the petitioner nor bar the court from
Settle order.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.