Decision of Interest

Based on this testimony and other facts, the husband was charged with criminal mischief in the fourth degree.

One of the elements of the crime charged is that the defendant damaged the “property of another.” The husband therefore moved to dismiss the information charging him with the crime because, he said, even if all the other elements could be proven, damage to the “property of another” could not, as the property ' the marital residence ' belonged solely to him, and his wife had no ownership interest in it whatsoever. The court thus had to determine if in fact the wife could have no ownership interest in the home. “Because Defendant and [the wife] are married,” stated the court, “that inquiry can be resolved by determining whether [the wife] would have any 'ownership interest' in the Home if she were to sue for a divorce and then seek a valuation and equitable distribution of the Home, pursuant to the Equitable Distribution Law. (See Domestic Relations Law ' 236.)”

The court agreed that because the husband acquired title to the home in his name only prior to his marriage, the home was his separate property. However, the court found the inquiry could not stop there, because under the Equitable Distribution Law “an increase in the value of separate property of one spouse, occurring during the marriage and prior to the commencement of matrimonial proceedings, which is due in part to the indirect contributions or efforts of the other spouse as homemaker and parent, should be considered marital property.” (Domestic Relations Law ' 236[B][1][d][3].” Price v. Price, 69 NY2d 8, 10 (1986).

Based on these facts, the court could not determine, as a matter of law, that the people would be unable to prove the element of damage to the “property of another.” It concluded that “the wife may have an equitable 'ownership interest' in the Home if, during her marriage to Defendant, the value of the Home increased due in part to her 'indirect contributions' or to her 'efforts ' as homemaker and parent.' If, at trial, the People prove those facts beyond a reasonable double, then they will have proven that 'property of another person,' i.e. , [the wife], was damaged. If, however, at trial, the People fail to prove those facts beyond a reasonable double, then they will not have proven that 'property of another person' was damaged.”

Wife May Have Equitable Interest in Husband's Separately Owned Home,

A man who allegedly rammed his truck into his and his wife's marital home could not avoid prosecution for criminal mischief simply because the home was his before marriage and is titled in his name alone. The People v. Carter, 13080230, NYLJ 1202642059975, at *1 (Just., WE, Decided Jan. 31, 2014).

The married couple were in their house arguing one evening when the husband left through the front door. The wife said that she locked the door and went upstairs. According to her deposition, “Moments later I heard two loud bangs downstairs. I then heard [Defendant's] diesel truck in front of the house along with his brother's truck. When I went downstairs I noticed [Defendant's] truck pull away. I then went into the kitchen to pour myself a cup of coffee and noticed that the back kitchen door wasn't completely shut. So I went to close it and noticed that the door's frame was completely separated and broken. I noticed that the door no longer closed and was unable to be secured.”

Based on this testimony and other facts, the husband was charged with criminal mischief in the fourth degree.

One of the elements of the crime charged is that the defendant damaged the “property of another.” The husband therefore moved to dismiss the information charging him with the crime because, he said, even if all the other elements could be proven, damage to the “property of another” could not, as the property ' the marital residence ' belonged solely to him, and his wife had no ownership interest in it whatsoever. The court thus had to determine if in fact the wife could have no ownership interest in the home. “Because Defendant and [the wife] are married,” stated the court, “that inquiry can be resolved by determining whether [the wife] would have any 'ownership interest' in the Home if she were to sue for a divorce and then seek a valuation and equitable distribution of the Home, pursuant to the Equitable Distribution Law. (See Domestic Relations Law ' 236.)”

The court agreed that because the husband acquired title to the home in his name only prior to his marriage, the home was his separate property. However, the court found the inquiry could not stop there, because under the Equitable Distribution Law “an increase in the value of separate property of one spouse, occurring during the marriage and prior to the commencement of matrimonial proceedings, which is due in part to the indirect contributions or efforts of the other spouse as homemaker and parent, should be considered marital property.” (Domestic Relations Law ' 236[B][1][d][3].” Price v. Price , 69 NY2d 8, 10 (1986).

Based on these facts, the court could not determine, as a matter of law, that the people would be unable to prove the element of damage to the “property of another.” It concluded that “the wife may have an equitable 'ownership interest' in the Home if, during her marriage to Defendant, the value of the Home increased due in part to her 'indirect contributions' or to her 'efforts ' as homemaker and parent.' If, at trial, the People prove those facts beyond a reasonable double, then they will have proven that 'property of another person,' i.e. , [the wife], was damaged. If, however, at trial, the People fail to prove those facts beyond a reasonable double, then they will not have proven that 'property of another person' was damaged.”