Welcome to the Amityville Horror Truth Website, the official website for information regarding the haunting that occurred in Amityville to the Lutz Family. Here you will find the real interviews, documentation and evidence from the people that were there.

DeFeo vs DeFeo

Document provided by Maxwell

Two interesting statements made in this court document (which back up the fact that Geraldine Gates and Ronnie DeFeo Jr. never met, nor married before the murders) are as follows:

1. "IN HIS NEW EVIDENCE, THE HUSBAND STATED THAT HE HAD MET AND MARRIED HIS WIFE WHILE HE WAS SERVING A 150-YEAR SENTENCE."

2. "PLAINTIFF STATES THAT HE FIRST MET THE DEFENDANT, GERALDINE A. DEFEO, IN JANUARY OF 1985 WHILE HE WAS INCARCERATED AT THE AUBURN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY."

159 Misc. 2d 490, *; 605 N.Y.S.2d 202, **;
1993 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 472, ***


RONALD JOSEPH DEFEO, Plaintiff, v. GERALDINE A. DEFEO, Defendant.

RJI No. 55-93-00010, Index No. 93-0023

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, ULSTER COUNTY

159 Misc. 2d 490; 605 N.Y.S.2d 202; 1993 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 472


September 24, 1993, Decided

NOTICE: [***1]

EDITED FOR PUBLICATION

CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff husband, an incarcerated pro se litigant, filed a motion for leave to renew his previous motion which sought a divorce from defendant wife pursuant to the provisions of N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 170(2) on the grounds of abandonment.


OVERVIEW: The court found in its previous decision that the husband, as an incarcerated spouse, was unable to prove a voluntary separation by his wife and that her intent not to resume cohabitation was unjustified. The court accepted his motion to renew because the husband had provided a valid excuse for not submitting the additional information in his original application. In his new evidence, the husband stated that he had met and married his wife while he was serving a 150-year sentence. The court found that unlike a traditional marriage, all visitation, communication, and marital relations were premised upon the parties working within this restrictive setting. Thus, when his wife told her husband that she no longer loved him and would not visit, such act constituted a voluntary separation of one spouse from the other with intent not to resume cohabitation within the confines of this marital relation. Such was done without the consent of the other and without justification. The court held that the husband had sustained his burden to show that a judgment of divorce should be issued on the grounds of abandonment notwithstanding the fact that the moving party was the incarcerated spouse.


OUTCOME: The court issued a judgment of divorce for the husband on the grounds of abandonment.


CORE TERMS: incarcerated, divorce, marriage, spouse, abandonment, cohabitation, resume, voluntary separation, serving, renewal, Domestic Relations Law, years to life, repeated, married, coming, pro-se, loved, original application, prior motion, imprisonment, marital relations, marital relation, motion to renew, life sentence, penitentiary, restrictive, visitation, parameters, awareness, domicile


1. Plaintiff, an incarcerated husband and pro se litigant, is entitled to renew his motion seeking a divorce where he provided a valid excuse for not submitting additional information in his original application for divorce, even though the information was in existence at the time of the earlier submission. A Motion to renew must be based upon newly discovered material facts or evidence which existed at the time the prior motion was made, but were unknown to the party now seeking renewal. Nevertheless, here, it is clear that plaintiff failed to include relevant facts detailing the terms of his imprisonment and the circumstances under which he met defendant. If originally alleged, such facts might have been determinative of the original decision rendered by the court in this matter.

Husband and Wife - Divorce - Default Judgment - Incarcerated Spouse

2. Plaintiff incarcerated husband is entitled to a default pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 170 (2), upon the ground of abandonment, where defendant, who married plaintiff with the knowledge that he was serving a sentence of 150 years to life, informed plaintiff that she no longer loved him and would not be coming back to visit any longer, despite repeated requests to do so by plaintiff, because this act constituted a voluntary separation of one spouse from the other with intent not to resume cohabitation within the confines of this marital relation. The marital domicile was a penitentiary and the expectation of the parties with respect to the parameters of such marriage was based upon defendant's awareness that plaintiff was serving a life sentence when the marriage commenced. Unlike a traditional marriage, all visitation, communication and marital relations were premised upon the parties working within this restrictive setting, acknowledging its limitations. Thus, defendant's actions done without the consent of plaintiff and without justification constitute abandonment.

COUNSEL: Appearances: Both parties appeared pro se.

JUDGES: PETERS

OPINION BY: KAREN K. PETERS

OPINION:

[*491] [**202] HON. KAREN K. PETERS, J.S.C.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RENEWAL

PETERS, KAREN K. J: Plaintiff, a pro-se litigant currently incarcerated at the Eastern Correctional Facility, moves for leave to renew so much of the previous motion which sought a divorce pursuant to the provisions of section 170(2) of the Domestic Relations Law. In support thereof, plaintiff alleges facts which, although in existence at the time of the prior motion, were not presented to this Court in the underlying papers submitted in connection therewith. Such underlying papers primarily consisted of standardized forms typically completed by pro-se litigants seeking an uncontested divorce.

It is well settled that "a motion to renew must be based upon newly discovered material facts or evidence which existed at the time the prior motion was made, but were unknown to the party now seeking renewal." Jones v Marcy, 135 AD2d 887, 888, 522 N.Y.S.2d 285. While the plaintiff herein admits that the information he now seeks to have this Court consider was in existence at the time of his [***2] earlier submission, it is clear that he failed to include relevant facts detailing the terms of his imprisonment and the circumstances under which he met the defendant. If originally alleged, such facts might have been determinative of the original decision rendered by the Court in this matter. This Court finds that since the plaintiff, as a pro-se litigant, has provided a valid excuse for not submitting the additional information in his original application, this Court will entertain the motion to renew. See generally Barnes v State of New York, 159 AD2d 753, 552 N.Y.S.2d 57. See also Innovative Chemical Corp. v Howe Plastics & Chemical Companies, Inc., 164 AD2d 965; Five Riverside Drive Towers Corp. v Chenango, Ltd., 111 AD2d 1025, 490 N.Y.S.2d 339.

The original application for a default divorce pursuant to the provisions of section 170(2) of the Domestic Relations Law was [**203] denied on the grounds that plaintiff failed to sustain his burden to show sufficient proof of 1) "a voluntary separation [*492] of one spouse from the other; 2) with intent not to resume cohabitation; 3) without the consent of the other spouse; and 4) without justification." Foster, Freed, [***3] Brandes, Law and the Family, NY Vol.1, Section 6:15 pg. 432. (2nd Edition). While plaintiff had sustained his burden with respect to defendant's intent not to resume cohabitation with him while he was incarcerated, this Court found by Decision and Order dated March 30, 1993, that plaintiff as an incarcerated spouse, was unable to prove a voluntary separation by the defendant and that her intent not to resume cohabitation was unjustified. Hence, unable to sustain the "fault standard of abandonment" as a ground for divorce, this Court denied the relief requested therein. See Defeo v Defeo, N.Y.L.J., June 1, 1993, at 32, Col. 5.

In the instant motion, plaintiff alleges that his prior papers failed to include that he was arrested on November 15, 1974 and charged with six counts of murder in the second degree. On December 4, 1975, plaintiff was sentenced to one hundred and fifty years to life. As a result thereof, plaintiff has been incarcerated since November 15, 1975 to the present time which consists of approximately eighteen and one half years. Plaintiff states that he first met the defendant, Geraldine A. DeFeo, in January of 1985 while he was incarcerated at the Auburn Correctional [***4] Facility. Their entire courtship leading to the decision to marry occurred exclusively while he was incarcerated. Prior to marrying, plaintiff's Correction Counsellor advised defendant of petitioner's extensive term of incarceration and his parole status. Notwithstanding the above, while still incarcerated at the Sullivan Correctional Facility, plaintiff and the defendant were married in the facility visiting room on July 5, 1989.

Plaintiff contends that cases cited in support of this Court's prior decision denying him a divorce on the ground of abandonment analyzed the fault grounds for a divorce when a marriage occurred prior to the incarceration of one's spouse. Plaintiff notes as follows:

"in that situation, the cases hold that the reason the parties are separated is the criminal conduct of the plaintiff, and that he should not be entitled to grounds for a divorce based on his illegal conduct. The courts prevent this by stating that the wife was justified in refusing to maintain contact with the plaintiff after he went to prison. The fact of the matter is that plaintiff . . . and the defendant . . . were married after the plaintiff . . . had been sentenced. The fact also [***5] remains that the defendant . . . was not justified in abandoning the plaintiff . . . because of my [*493] imprisonment, while she voluntarily undertook to start the marriage while plaintiff was serving a one hundred and fifty years to life sentence."



Aff. of Defeo, dated June 4, 1993 at par. 9-11.

With such new evidence before the Court, this Court finds that plaintiff's contention that on or about March 1, 1991, defendant without cause or justification, abandoned him with intent not to return when she came to the Eastern Correctional Facility visiting room and informed him that she would not be coming back because she no longer loved him and, has refused to visit or otherwise communicate with plaintiff despite repeated requests to do so, constitutes sufficient grounds for this Court to grant a divorce based upon the ground of abandonment. This Court finds that the marital domicile was a penitentiary, whether it be the Auburn Correctional Facility, the Sullivan Correctional Facility or the Eastern Correctional Facility and that the expectation of the parties with respect to parameters of such marriage was based upon the defendant's keen awareness that the plaintiff was serving a [***6] one hundred and fifty year to life sentence when the marriage commenced. Therefore, unlike a traditional marriage, all visitation, communication and marital relations were premised upon the parties working within this restrictive setting, acknowledging its limitations.

[**204] When defendant informed plaintiff on or about March 1, 1991 that she no longer loved him and would not be coming back to visit any longer, despite repeated requests to do so by the plaintiff, this Court finds that such act constituted a voluntary separation of one spouse from the other with intent not to resume cohabitation within the confines of this marital relation. Upon the facts herein, such was done without the consent of the other and without justification. Accordingly, this Court finds that plaintiff has sustained his burden to show that a judgment of divorce should be issued in the instant case on the grounds of abandonment notwithstanding the fact that the moving party is the incarcerated spouse.

DATED: 9/24/93
Kingston, NY
HON. KAREN K. PETERS
J.S.C.

And it seems this divorce case was noteworthy, since it is typically the 'spouse at liberty' who requests a divorce from a spouse in prison due to abandonment:

So while it seems this 1989 marriage between Geraldine and Ronnie was legitimate, it's important to know that Geraldine was apparently still married to Gerald Gates at the time (and to this day), which would mean the marriage to Ronnie was never valid.

More importantly, since she apparently never married or even knew Ronnie until 1985, all the claims she makes in Ric Osuna's book "The Night the DeFeos Died" is utter nonsense -- meaning Ric's book as a whole is pretty much worthless, as Geraldine seemed to be his major source for most of it.

 

This subject is discussed in these two threads on our forum:
Back When the Night the DeFeo's Died was published
Shattered Hopes (film by Ric Osuna & Katco)

.
©2OO3 AMITYVILLEHORRORTRUTH.COM, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

"THE AMITYVILLE HORROR" IS A REGISTERED TRADEMARK, UNAUTHORIZED USE IS A VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAWS.
.