In re Estate of Roccamonte

Sopko (plaintiff) resumed her relationship with, and divorced her husband to be with, Roccamonte after he promised he could not divorce his own wife due to business-related stigma but would support her financially and live with her; she and her daughter lived with Roccamonte as husband and wife until his death decades later, during which he gave her an apartment, took vacations with her, financially supported her daughter, and repeatedly promised to provide for her after his death, though he ultimately died intestate. Sopko sued the estate (defendant) for a lump-sum award, the trial judge dismissed her complaint, the appellate division reversed in her favor, and the estate appealed, arguing that because Sopko had not been required to perform domestic work for Roccamonte, unlike in a prior case recognizing such an award, sexual services were the sole consideration for his promise, rendering the arrangement an unenforceable meretricious contract.