1. For each of the following fact scenarios, state the issue.Remember to state it in the form:law, legal question, key facts.

2. When answering whether or not a case is on point, do not simply answer yes or no. Explain differences and similarities between the issue and key facts in your fact situation and the issue and key facts in the case that you have read. Your answer about whether or not a case is on point should be well written using complete sentences and with correct grammar and spelling. It should be similar to a paragraph in a legal memo discussing the case and applying it to the facts in the situation given to you. For example, using the fictional Schubert case, your first sentence about whether the case is on point for the plaintiff's experience in the hot tub might be "The case ofSchubert v. Hotel Astor strongly supports Mr. Watters' argument that the hotel should have provided a lifeguard on the night of his visit." Then you would go on to explain what happened inSchubert and why or why not it is on point for our client's problem.

3.You will need to use Westlaw to look up the 4 cases I have listed, but you do not need to do any additional research. Please read the cases very carefully!

1. Muffy and our client, Biff, have been married for ten years. Muffy had grown increasingly unhappy in the marriage, claiming that Biff was boring and no fun. In January, 2014, she left the marital residence and rented an apartment on Park Avenue in Rochester. Biff did nothing to cause her to leave, and he for months he begged her to return home. Despite his pleas, however, Muffy remained in her apartment and seemed to be enjoying life without Biff. Biff finally became reconciled to the idea that Muffy had left him. Last month he began dating a single neighbor, and his life was finally improving. In addition, his great aunt Mrya passed away in December and left him $2 million. Biff has now decided that it is time to move on and has come to our law firm, asking us to file a divorce petition on his behalf. We filed the petition on March 1, 2015, seeking a divorce on the grounds of abandonment. Much to our surprise, Muffy contested the divorce. Surely it has nothing to do with the fact that another neighbor told her about Biff's new girlfriend and his inheritance! In her answer, Muffy claims that she did not abandon Biff for a full year (as required by the NY divorce statute) because last July she and Biff were at a party together and while the fireworks were going off, they were enjoying "fireworks of their own". She states that after that night, they attempted reconciliation. During the next two weeks Biff visited her several times in her apartment and they "always" had sex. Is she correct or will Biff win his abandonment divorce?

What is the issue?

Is the following case (below) on point?

Why or why not?

Haymes v. Haymes, 221 A.D.2d 73, 646 N.Y.S.2d 315 (First Dept. 1996)

2. Thelma Woods was charged with grand larceny in the third degree based on the fact that when she left Macy's she was shoplifting merchandise with a total retail value of $3,100. This amount would make her guilty of grand larceny in the third degree, which has a threshold value of $3,000. Thelma argues that the retail value is not the correct value to use for purposes of the larceny statutes. She claims that the correct value is the wholesale value, because that is what Macy's paid for the merchandise. If this value is used she cannot be convicted of grand larceny in the third degree as the wholesale value of the stolen merchandise is only $1,600.

What is the issue?

For each of the two following cases (below), are they on point?

Why or why not?

People v. Medjioubi, 173 Misc. 2d 259, 661 N.Y.S. 2d 502 (Supreme Court, N.Y. County, 1997)

People v. Irrizari, 5 N.Y.2d 142, 182 N.Y.S. 2d 361 (1959)

3. Leona Marks was a 35 year old supermodel when she married her handyman, 20 year old Sean Smith. Sean had finished high school and was planning to start school at the local community college in the fall, but he abandoned those plans once he began dating Ms. Marks. The couple was married for eight years, and had two sons, who are now six and four. During the marriage the family lived a luxurious lifestyle, jetting back and forth to Ms. Marks' modeling appointments all over the world. They had homes in London, New York and Paris, all purchased with Ms. Marks earnings. Mr. Smith did not work during the marriage and spent much time with his sons, although the family of course employed a nanny as well. Last year Leona became obsessed with the concepts of "living green" and "sustainability". She abandoned her modeling career in mid-season while she had $5 million in modeling contracts outstanding. She now lives on a small commune in Yates County. The commune grows all of its own food and keeps to a strict vegan diet. Ms. Marks is living with the founder of the commune and the two have dedicated their lives to nurturing the earth. Mr. Smith is raising the couple's two sons, and he has engaged our firm to help him through the process of divorce. Both Mr. Smith and Ms. Marks have agreed to the divorce but not to the property settlement. He wants the couple's three homes to be distributed between the two of them equally. Ms. Marks has responded that Mr. Smith contributed nothing to any of the houses, and that she no longer has any assets to contribute. She believes that all of the marital assets should be distributed to her so that she can "save the earth".

What is the issue?

Is the following case (below) on point?

Why or why not?

Gastineau v. Gastineau, 151 Misc.2d 813, 573 N.Y.S.2d 819 (Supreme Court, Suffolk County, 1991)