Page 498 - WhyAsInY

Why (as in yaverbaum)
while the children were still minors, there would be a “radius restriction” imposed on any desire on her part to move any of them to a new residence that would be farther away from New York City than fifty miles, more or less. Plaintiff, wishing to be free to move with the children to any place in the United States that she chose, therefore refused to sign the agreement.
7. After plaintiff balked at signing the agreement, defendant for the first time took the position that, notwithstanding the fact that title to the house was in plaintiff’s name (as demanded by plaintiff’s father, who had supplied a small fraction of its value), defendant was entitled by law and equity to one-half of its value, and informed plaintiff that it remained his inflexible position that under no circumstances would he agree that she would have the right to move the children away from him.
8. Defendant, to demonstrate that he was serious, took the position that he would oppose the legality of any action brought by plaintiff to obtain a divorce, as the plaintiff had no grounds for a divorce under the New York statute.
9. Also to demonstrate that he was serious about the radius restriction and the value of the house, defendant refused to have his representative accept service of a summons and complaint, thereby putting plaintiff to the task of attempting to serve defendant personally, using a process server.
10. The process server showed up at defendant’s place of business with the intention of serving defendant and failed to be admitted to see the defendant, but he did succeed in creating a disturbance and an embarrassment to the defendant in his new job.
• 480 •