New York Divorce Law Blog : New York Divorce Lawyer & Attorney : Law Offices of David A. Gabay, PC : Serving New York City, Long Island, Suffolk County, Nassau County

A trial judge in New York City recently ruled in Moore v. Moore that a wife seeking a divorce can use evidence of her husband’s internet activities with another woman which she found on a computer she took from her husband’s car.

The Moore’s were married in 1963, and are now retired. He was an information technology consultant and she was a school teacher.

 In Moore,  the wife took a laptop computer out of her husband’s car just before she commenced her divorce case. According to the wife’s attorney, she was searching the computer for financial information when she came upon a large number of salacious instant messages which the husband exchanged with a woman in Texas.   The wife’s attorney told the husband’s attorney she had the computer, and the parties agreed to make copies of the computer’s hard drive. The materials found on the hard drive were repeatedly referred to by the wife in affidavits submitted to the Court without objection by the husband. Eventually, the case was transferred to another judge, and the defendant moved to suppress the contents of the hard drive.

The Court denied the motion, finding that the wife die not commit a crime or otherwise violate the husband’s rights in taking the computer and copying its contents. The Court noted that the attorneys for the parties specifically agreed to copy the hard drive, and the defendant did not move to suppress the contents of the computer when the wife first bean referring to items found on the computer in at least two (2) affidavits she submitted to the Court at least six (6) months prior to his suppression motion.

The Court determined that the computer was a family computer as claimed by the wife and not a work computer as alleged by the husband. The Court also found that the taking of the computer was appropriate since it was done before the commencement of the case and the machine was taken from the family car. Finally, the Court also noted that the parties agreed in writing and through their attorneys that the computer’s hard drive should be copied and made available to both sides.

This case is another interesting example of the way in which computers and technology affect divorce and family law cases. It is also a reminder that some people will do a lot of preparation and planning prior to beginning a divorce-remember, the wife was searching for financial information on the computer when she stumbled upon the explicit instant  messages.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In my practice, I often represent men who whose wives or girlfriends have orders of protection against them or are seeking to obtain one in Court. One of the more interesting aspects of this area of practice is explaining to my clients how orders or protection are used or abused, and how they are enforced.

I typically tell my clients that when it comes to orders of protection the police have a mandatory arrest policy: if the person who has an order of protection call the police and tells them you violated the order, the police will arrest you first and ask questions later. It’s that simple. There is no discussion, no debate, and no appeal. This policy was created and authorized by elected officials and whether you, the defendant, are guilty or innocent is at the very bottom of their list of concerns. When you get back to Court, you will be charged with either a class A misdemeanor or a class E felony, depending on how the prosecutor decides to charge the case.

Now, I have a new way of making my point to my clients. I came across this story today. A man and his ex-wife decided to remarry, but it turns out she had an order of protection against him from a prior dispute and it was never vacated. At the wedding, the groom got into an argument with a guest, and the police were called. When the police arrived, they discovered that the bride had an order of protection against the groom, and he was arrested and charged with criminal contempt for violating the order. He was charged with felony contempt has held without bail.

This unfortunate incident just goes to show how strictly police enforce orders of protection and how careful clients need to be when faced with a petition for an order of protection or an actual order.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link