Fisher v. Fisher
| Decision Date | 26 August 1964 |
| Citation | 252 N.Y.S.2d 643,43 Misc.2d 905 |
| Parties | Larry FISHER, Plaintiff, v. Lillian FISHER and Vincent J. Malone, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Jacob Shientag, New York City, for plaintiff.
Parker, Duryee, Benjamin, Zunino & Malone, New York City, for defendants.
Defendants move for summary judgment in this action dismissing the amended complaint, seeking rescission of a separation agreement. Plaintiff asks for judgment declaring said agreement null and void.
Plaintiff's first cause of action is based upon his contention that the separation agreement is void because of lack of consideration, and upon his allegation that he entered into the agreement under 'the mistaken notion that he was married to defendant Fisher and was obligated to support her'. In his second cause of action plaintiff alleges that the agreement is void as against the public policy of this State.
Defendants allege that plaintiff obtained a Florida divorce from his first wife on July 26, 1946 (he married defendant on January 7, 1947). Plaintiff's first wife obtained a judgment of divorce against plaintiff in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, on July 22, 1948. Defendant Fisher was not made a party to that action. Defendant Fisher, in January 1962, instituted an action for separation and to declare a Mexican divorce obtained by plaintiff against her in January 1961, invalid. Following a temporary order awarding defendant support and maintenance, said action was settled and discontinued with the execution of the separation agreement now in issue.
The disposition of these motions depends upon the answer to the vital question of whether or not the separation agreement was made as an inducement to divorce and therefore void under section 51 of the Domestic Relations Law.
The undisputed statements of fact set forth in the record establish that a condition of and consideration for the separation agreement was a contemporaneous agreement of the parties that a divorce would be obtained. The agreement provided (par. 18th): 'In the event that the parties hereto are still united in the bonds of matrimony on the 1st day of March, 1963, then it is mutually agreed that all of the terms, covenants and agreements herein contained shall cease to be binding upon either of the parties for any purpose, and they shall be at liberty to readjust their differences or to resort to any and all other remedies at law or in equity,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. Johnson
...dismantling the ticking bombshell of Viles v. Viles, 14 N.Y.2d 365, 251 N.Y.S.2d 672, 200 N.E.2d 567, and its progeny (Fisher v. Fisher, 43 Misc.2d 905, 252 N.E.2d 643; Taylor v. Renzi, 41 Misc.2d 160, 245 N.Y.S.2d 456). These decisions had cast uncertainty upon the legality, (by reason of ......
-
Harges v. Harges
...567, 568, see also Hettich v. Hettich, 301 N.Y. 447, 95 N.E.2d 40; Murthey v. Murthey, 287 N.Y. 740, 39 N.E.2d 941; Fisher v. Fisher, 43 Misc.2d 905, 252 N.Y.S.2d 643. Plaintiff swears that she 'was requested to sign the Mexican power of attorney before the other document * * * was told tha......
-
Fitzgerald v. Morgenstern
...N.Y.S.2d 672, 200 N.E.2d 567; Niman v. Niman, 15 Misc.2d 1095, 181 N.Y.S.2d 260, aff'd 8 A.D.2d 793, 188 N.Y.S.2d 948; Fisher v. Fisher, 43 Misc.2d 905, 252 N.Y.S.2d 643. These cases merely carry out the statutory prohibition against a contract 'to alter or dissolve' a marriage or 'to relie......
-
Hytell v. Hytell
...Estate, supra; Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, supra; Yates v. Yates, 183 Misc. 934, 938, 51 N.Y.S.2d 135, 139; cf. Fisher v. Fisher, 43 Misc.2d 905, 252 N.Y.S.2d 643. Without such a finding, Viles v. Viles, 14 N.Y.2d 365, 251 N.Y.S.2d 672, 200 N.E.2d 567, is On the cause of action to set aside t......