By MICHAEL VIRTANEN
Associated Press

ALBANY - In a ruling expected to send other alimony disputes back to trial courts for clarification, the New York Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that there's no fixed definition of "cohabitation," concluding that it depends on what a couple meant in their separation and divorce agreements.

In a 1997 divorce, Lawrence Graev agreed to make $120,000 maintenance payments annually to Linda Graev for 12 years or until she died, remarried or cohabited with someone else for "60 substantially consecutive days." A midlevel court had ruled that cohabitation requires "sharing of finances," and Linda Graev didn't do that with a man who stayed at her Connecticut summer home after the divorce.

New York's top court ruled 4-3 Tuesday that cohabitation definitions "bring to mind a variety of physical, emotional and material factors ... depending on the parties' intent." The majority concluded that was ambiguous in the case of the Graevs and that the court had never required shared finances to define cohabitation.

"Neither the dictionary nor New York case law supplies an authoritative or ‘plain' meaning," Hon. Susan Phillips Read wrote.

Chief Judge Hon. Judith Kaye, Hon. Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick and Hon. Theodore Jones Jr. agreed.

In a dissent, three other judges concluded that Graev should now stop paying spousal support since his divorce settlement, under which his ex-wife received almost $2.5 million initially, was clear. They said it was "undisputed" that Linda Graev and someone who owned a home near hers in Connecticut "spent virtually every day and night together for over 60 days from June through August 2004," although each paid his or her own expenses, and their finances were not commingled.

"Because the cohabitation provision includes a specific time period together with the maintenance termination event, I believe the clause is unambiguous and there is no need to remit this case to Supreme Court for yet another hearing," Hon. Victoria Graffeo wrote. Hon. Robert Smith and Hon. Eugene Pigott Jr. joined the dissent.

Myrna Felder, the lawyer representing Linda Graev, said her client now returns to the trial court to argue for keeping the support payments.

"There's a tremendous group of people that are affected by this," said Felder. She said for 20 years, as the midlevel court concluded, the case law showed an economic element to cohabitation.

"I feel sorry for all of the people who have signed these agreements who believed they were relying on the case law, because now every single one of them is open to a new interpretation based upon the facts of that particular case and that particular couple," Felder said. The Women's Bar Association of New York filed a brief warning of the possible fallout, she said.

Attorney Leslie Corwin said his client was ecstatic. Corwin said he didn't think this case changed the law, only that Felder and others had misunderstood it.

"It's an important issue for contactual agreements in the matrimonial field in New York," Corwin said. "The economic circumstances condition of cohabitation is absolutely wrong. That's the key for me there."