Adlerman v. Adlerman

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation27 A.D.2d 525,277 N.Y.S.2d 117
PartiesIleana ADLERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edwin J. ADLERMAN, Defendant-Respondent.
Decision Date13 December 1966

Page 117

277 N.Y.S.2d 117
27 A.D.2d 525
Ileana ADLERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Edwin J. ADLERMAN, Defendant-Respondent.
Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division,
First Department.
Dec. 13, 1966.

L. Okin, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.

H. H. Harris, New York City, for defendant-respondent.

Order entered August 13, 1965, denying plaintiff's motion for an increase in [27 A.D.2d 526] alimony payments and payments for the infant issue, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. All concur except McNALLY, J., who dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent. Plaintiff has alleged a change of circumstances.

Page 118

Her application should not be determined without a hearing. In this separation action the modified judgment of June 23, 1960 (10 A.D.2d 945, 202 N.Y.S.2d 215, affd. 8 N.Y.2d 1100, 209 N.Y.S.2d 318, 171 N.E.2d 463) provides for monthly support payments of $300 for the wife and $200 for the female child of the parties. The cause was tried in December, 1959 when the child was eight months. Plaintiff's application is grounded largely on additional educational, medical and clothing needs of the child now six years. Defendant is a urologist. In 1959 his gross income was $30,000, net income $18,000 and assets about $200,000. Plaintiff alleges and defendant does not deny that his income has increased considerably and he is otherwise more affluent. Plaintiff itemizes educational, recreational, medical and clothing expenses for the child exceeding the amount awarded for her support exclusive of any allocation for rent and other apartment expenses. Defendant challenges some of the items as either unnecessary or unauthorized. Special Term denied the application without a hearing on the ground the plaintiff failed to show changed circumstances. It cannot be gainsaid that a female child circumstanced as is the child of the parties requires substantially more financial support at the age of six than she required at the tender age of eight months (see Malamat v. Malamat, 264 App.Div. 795, 35 N.Y.S.2d 199). It is not enough that the child has grown or for that matter there has been a general inflation of prices. (Liebmann v. Liebmann, 19 A.D.2d 821, 243 N.Y.S.2d 558.) However, the fortuitous circumstance of the child's maturation during an inflationary period inevitably tends to increase her financial support requirements. Defendant's legal liability therefor subsists within the limits of his financial capacity. (Kraunz v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT