Adams v. Adams
| Decision Date | 19 March 1971 |
| Citation | 66 Misc.2d 378,320 N.Y.S.2d 636 |
| Parties | Alice ADAMS and Clark Adams, Plaintiffs, v. Wayne ADAMS, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Bracken & Jacoppi, East Setauket, for plaintiffs.
Irving Kornblum, New York City, for defendant.
Plaintiff Alice Adams is the former wife of defendant, from whom she was divorced by decree of an Arkansas court on October 1, 1958. Plaintiff Clark Adams is the son of the marriage who attained his majority on October 13, 1968. Incorporated in but surviving the divorce decree was a separation agreement, dated September 26, 1958, which provided for the payment to the wife of support for the son and, under certain conditions, the payment of the son's college expense. It is this separation agreement which is the subject of the instant action.
In a proceeding under Article 4 of the Family Court Act, the wife petitioned the Family Court, Suffolk County for several items of relief, including the payment of the son's college expenses. In a memorandum decision dated July 6, 1967, that Court determined that, under the circumstances which prevailed, the husband was not obligated to pay his son's educational expenses. In another memorandum decision, dated April 2, 1968, the Court indicated that the amount of support for which the husband was responsible was $95.00 per month.
It is defendant's contention that the determinations of the Family Court constitute collateral estoppel barring this action and that, insofar as the son is concerned, the complaint fails to state a cause of action.
Turning first to the cause of action of plaintiff Alice Adams, it is her claim that the alleged reduction by defendant of support payments for the son to $85.00 per month, commencing October, 1966 and the subsequent cessation of payments in November, 1968 constituted breaches of the separation agreement. Notwithstanding the determination by the Family Court as to the amount of the support payments to be made by defendant, that Court, the jurisdiction of which is limited, did not pass upon the issue involved in the subject cause of action. It merely modified the support requirement of the divorce decree, but its determination did not affect the rights of the wife under the separation agreement which survived the decree (cf. Goldman v. Goldman, 282 N.Y. 296, 305, 26 N.E.2d 265, 269; McMains v. McMains, 15 N.Y.2d 283, 285, 258 N.Y.S.2d 93, 95, 206 N.E.2d 185, 186). Before the doctrine of collateral estoppel can be involved, '(t)here must be an identity of issue which has necessarily been decided in the prior action (proceeding) and is decisive of the present action, * * *.' (Schwartz v. Public Administrator of County of Bronx, 24 N.Y.2d 65, 71, 298 N.Y.S.2d 955, 960, 246 N.E.2d 725, 729.) Since this requirement has not been met, the doctrine does not apply here. Defendant's obligations on the contract have not been eliminated or diminished and plaintiff Alice Adams is not barred from maintaining the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. P. A. J. Theater Corp.
-
Lopez v. Taylor
...602, 114 Ill.Dec. 682, 516 N.E.2d 837, 844 (1987); Stevens v. Stevens, 798 S.W.2d 136, 139 (Ky.1990); Adams v. Adams, 66 Misc.2d 378, 320 N.Y.S.2d 636, 638-39 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1971). When third-party beneficiary contracts are involved, determining whether one party's continuing performance is ex......
-
Drake v. Drake
...on other grounds 46 N.Y.2d 897, 414 N.Y.S.2d 905, 387 N.E.2d 1220; Matter of Chilson, 28 A.D.2d 766, 282 N.Y.S.2d 80; Adams v. Adams, 66 Misc.2d 378, 320 N.Y.S.2d 636); and promises to provide for a child in a will or policy of life insurance (Ferro v. Bologna, 31 N.Y.2d 30, 35, 334 N.Y.S.2......
-
Jewett v. Jewett
...McMains v. McMains, 15 N.Y.2d 283, 258 N.Y.S.2d 93, 206 N.E.2d 185; Howland v. Howland, 15 A.D.2d 122, 221 N.Y.S.2d 669; Adams v. Adams, 66 Misc.2d 378, 320 N.Y.S.2d 636). On the other hand, the husband feels that the support order of Family Court has taken over and supersedes or makes null......