Fleischer v. Fleischer
| Decision Date | 03 May 1966 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Constance FLEISCHER, Appellant, v. Roy FLEISCHER, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Rosen & Rosen, Robert M. Rosen, Monticello, for appellant.
Oppenheim & Oppenheim, Stephen L. Oppenheim, Monticello, for respondent.
Before GIBSON, P.J., and HERLIHY, REYNOLDS, TAYLOR and AULISI, JJ..
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Sullivan County.
When these litigants were recently before us (Matter of Fleischer v. Fleischer, 24 A.D.2d 667, 261 N.Y.S.2d 165), we affirmed, after increasing the amount to be paid, an order of support for the dependent minors involved. The Family Court has now conditioned the payment of such support on appellant's compliance with certain visitation rights it granted the respondent. The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the Family Court had jurisdiction to condition the support order in the manner in which it did. We believe that it manifestly had such jurisdiction. The Family Court clearly had jurisdiction over the appellant against whom the order runs (Domestic Relations Law, § 34), and § 447 of the Family Court Act clearly gives it the power to issue the order made in the present case (Matter of Silvestris v. Silvestris, 24 A.D.2d 247, 251, 265 N.Y.S.2d 173, 178; Matter of Strecker v. Strecker, 10 A.D.2d 312, 314, 199 N.Y.S.2d 111, 114; Matter of Guyette v. Haley, 286 App.Div. 451, 461, 144 N.Y.S.2d 493, 503; see also, Matter of Beddini v. Beddini, 281 App.Div. 701, 117 N.Y.S.2d 511).
Order affirmed, without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Proceeding for Support under Article 4 of the Family Court Act, Matter of
...would perforce be the same. Callender v. Callender, 37 A.D.2d 360, 325 N.Y.S.2d 420 (1st Dept.); see also Fleischer v. Fleischer, 25 A.D.2d 901, 269 N.Y.S.2d 270 (3rd Dept.); Webster v. Webster, 14 Misc.2d 64, 68, 176 N.Y.S.2d 799, 803 (Sup.Ct., Westch.). 2 Petitioner contends, however, tha......
-
Martin v. Martin
......1) has been held to exclude any liability of a divorced husband for the support of his former wife (Matter of Fleischer v. Fleischer, 24 A.D.2d 667, 261 N.Y.S.2d 165; Ross v. Ross, 206 Misc. 1073, 136 N.Y.S.2d 23). . However, both Matter of Fleischer ......
-
Proceeding Under Uniform Support of Dependents Law, Matter of
...withheld or denied or is impractical by reason of the mother's removal of the child to a distant state (Matter of Fleischer v. Fleischer, 25 A.D.2d 901, 269 N.Y.S.2d 270; Matter of Sawyer v. Larkin, 37 A.D.2d 929, 326 N.Y.S.2d 270; Abraham v. Abraham, 44 A.D.2d 675, 35 N.Y.S.2d 794; Callend......
-
D. v. O.
...909; Borax v. Borax, 4 N.Y.2d 113, 116, 172 N.Y.S.2d 805, 807--808, 149 N.E.2d 326, 327--328; Callender, Supra; Fleischer v. Fleischer, 25 App.Div.2d 901, 269 N.Y.S.2d 270, 3rd Dept.). However, appraising the conflicting testimony in this lengthy trial with the aid of the opportunity to obs......