Brody v. Brody
| Decision Date | 06 April 1967 |
| Citation | 19 N.Y.2d 790,279 N.Y.S.2d 732,226 N.E.2d 539 |
| Parties | , 226 N.E.2d 539 Evely BRODY, Respondent-Appellant, v. Barnie BRODY, Appellant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 22 A.D.2d 646, 252 N.Y.S.2d 1008.
Gladstone & Lowell, New York City (Stanley H. Lowell, Harold A. Taft and Paul Shilkoff, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant-respondent.
Foley & Hickey, New York City (John M. Foley, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent-appellant.
Husband made motion to amend judgment of separation to reduce alimony and support payments.
The judgment of separation had originally provided that husband was to pay $420 a week for support and maintenance of wife and three children and that husband was also to pay the college expenses of the children, all of whom were then minors. The official referee found that after entry of judgment of separation one of the children had reached majority, was married, and was no longer dependent on his parents for support, and that another child had entered college, and that the wife had acquired gainful employment and assets consisting of bank accounts and stocks, and that husband's income had remained about the same, and that, considering financial status of both husband and wife and change of circumstances after judgment of separation, and giving due consideration to actual needs of wife to maintain herself and children properly, amount of $320 a week would be sufficient to maintain her and the two remaining minor children in the same style and mode of living as before the separation.
The Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Louis J. Capozzoli, J., entered an order confirming the report of an official referee and granting the motion of the husband.
The Appellate Division entered an order which modified, on the law and the facts, and, as modified, affirmed, the order of the Special Term. The modification consisted of increasing the support award from $320 to $370 a week.
Cross-appeals were taken to the Court of Appeals.
Order affirmed, without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kover v. Kover
... ... (Brody v. Brody, 22 A.D.2d 646, 252 N.Y.S.2d 1008, affd. 19 N.Y.2d 790, 279 N.Y.S.2d 732, 226 N.E.2d 539; Presberg v. Presberg, 285 App.Div. 1134, 140 ... ...
-
Lois R v. Richard R
..."should be encouraged to be useful" (Brody v. Brody, 22 A.D.2d 646, 252 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1st Dept., aff'd. 19 N.Y.2d 790, 791, 279 N.Y.S.2d 732, 733, 226 N.E.2d 539, 540), but she cannot at this time be deprived of support because of the uncertain possibility of her securing Finally, responde......
-
Paget v. Paget
... ... (Brody v. Brody, 22 A.D.2d 646, 252 N.Y.S.2d 1008; aff'd, 19 N.Y.2d 790, 279 N.Y.S.2d 732, 226 N.E.2d 539.) Merely showing that the husband's income has ... ...
-
Ardito v. Ardito
... ... Nor does he present any issue of fact requiring resolution at trial (Brody v. Brody, 22 A.D.2d 646, 252 N.Y.S.2d 1008, affd 19 N.Y.2d 790, 279 N.Y.S.2d 732, 226 N.E.2d 539; Jaworsky v. Jaworsky, 87 A.D.2d 622, 448 N.Y.S.2d ... ...