Schedule a Consultation: (973) 274-5200
Social Accounts Sprite

Snyder & Sarno, LLC wins Appellate Division Decision

By Snyder & Sarno on April 26, 2016


Snyder & Sarno, LLC wins another Appellate Division decision. Last month, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court award of over 1.3 million to Plaintiff for palimony, enforcement of the parties’ 1992 Agreement, and counsel fees and costs. See Gelinas v. Conti. The Appellate Division held that an Agreement the parties entered into in 1992, which contained mutual release clauses and provided for the payment to the Plaintiff of child support and her own support among other monies, did not preclude Plaintiff from asserting a claim for palimony, which arose subsequent to the Agreement.  Critical to the Court’s determination was that when the parties entered their Agreement in 1992, they “could not have recognized or known whether the separate and independent palimony obligation could arise from defendant’s conduct that occurred after the agreement.” Further, nothing in the 1992 Agreement precluded plaintiff from asserting a claim for support based upon promises made in the years after the Agreement was made and the contractual support payments ended, particularly in view of the undisputed evidence that Plaintiff’s relationship with Defendant continued after 1992.

The parties met in 1981 while they were both working for an accounting firm and began a relationship in 1984.  Defendant was married with two children.  Plaintiff was not married and had no children.  In May 1986, the parties had a child after which, Defendant purchased a home and provided support for Plaintiff and their child, despite experiencing difficulties in their relationship.  Plaintiff and Defendant went on to have two other children together born in 1989 and 1990.  In March 1992, the parties entered into an Agreement, resolving custody and support issues.  Thereafter, the parties resumed a marital-type relationship from 1996 through 2008.  During this time and in spite of relationships with other women (of which the Plaintiff was not aware), Defendant made express and implied promises to support Plaintiff for life and Defendant’s promise was made for valid consideration. Thus, the Court enforced the parties’ 1992 Agreement and found a valid palimony claim existed.  

Related to This

Message Us

"I was involved in a VERY complicated and tumultuous child custody, divorce, domestic violence case for two full years. I was fortunate enough to be represented by one of the top matrimonial teams in the state of NJ, and the outcome in my case exceeded my every expectation." - Former Client

"Paul personally stood by my side and represented me throughout my injury case. Whether it was business at hand, advice, or a late night phone call to help me understand what was going on; he never took a step back towards helping me. I knew that I could call on him at any time . My case was very successful and I attribute that to Paul's dedication . He even came to me during a snow storm when I could not make it to his office. I certainly would recommend him to anyone." - Former Client

X CLOSE

Bergen County Office

401 Hackensack Ave
Ste 706
Hackensack, NJ 07601

Closed Today

Essex County Office

425 Eagle Rock Ave
Ste 202
Roseland, NJ 07068

Closed Today

Somerset County Office

440 Route 22 E
Ste 170
Bridgewater, NJ 08807

Closed Today

X CLOSE

Message Us

X CLOSE

X CLOSE

Popular Tags