Fowler v. Rizzuto
| Decision Date | 28 May 1954 |
| Citation | 205 Misc. 1088 |
| Parties | Odessa Fowler, Complainant,<BR>v.<BR>Philip J. Rizzuto, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Emil K. Ellis for complainant.
Irving Mendelson for defendant.
This is in effect a request by the complainant for a hearing in open court whereat the defendant is to be examined with regard to his finances. The complainant in her affidavit states that the defendant has grossly understated his means and resources and attempts to show the court that his wealth is far greater than he has indicated to the court's probation department.
It is true, as a matter of practice, that this court does inquire as to the finances of a defendant in filiation proceedings when fixing either a temporary or permanent order for the support of a natural child. This inquiry is conducted sometimes by its probation department or both.
However the court is limited completely by the statute pursuant to which it assumes jurisdiction in paternity cases.
There is no provision in our statute for anything akin to a supplementary proceeding examination. This is a purely civil remedy. A paternity action is a quasi-criminal proceeding and has been so denominated by our Court of Appeals (Matter of Clausi, 296 N.Y. 354).
Nowhere in the criminal law can a defendant be made to testify against himself. Section 67 of our statute, the New York City Criminal Courts Act, says, "but the defendant shall not be compelled to testify." Presumably the court could fix an amount for the support of a child within the framework and limitation of the statute and order its payment, thus obliquely forcing a defendant to give evidence to justify a reduction. However the court must be ever mindful of the purpose, intent and limitation which the statute indicates.
We are bound by subdivision 4 of section 61 of the New York City Criminal Courts Act which provides as follows: "The word `support' as used in this article may include (a) the necessary support and education of the child either prior or subsequent to the order of filiation, according to the age of the child and the station in life of its mother and the financial ability of the parents, (b) the funeral expenses of the child should it die, (c) the liability on the part of the father to pay the reasonable expenses of the mother's confinement and recovery and such reasonable expenses in connection with her pregnancy as the court in its discretion may deem proper."
From this we see:
Let us further analyze these requirements.
The words, "according to the age of the child and the station in life of its mother and the financial ability of the parents," are revealing. It is clear that the mother cannot advance her station at the defendant's expense. This is a legislative reflection of public policy dating back to the English precourser of our paternity statute.
There was formerly a legal limit of one pound per week for the child born out of wedlock, which might not be exceeded though the father had the wealth of Croesus. (The Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872, 35, 36 Vict. ch. 65, §§ 3, 4, 5.)
The words of the statute set forth (supra) give consideration to the father's financial ability only so far as that status...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Stoeckl, 84
...and for such reason this, and similar statutes, are often referred to as quasi-criminal. People v. Martin, supra; Fowler v. Rizzuto, 205 Misc. 1088, 132 N.Y.S.2d 29; Bolich v. Robinson, 106 Neb. 449, 184 N.W. 218. However, as pointed out by the Minnesota court in State v. Jeffrey, 188 Minn.......
-
Anonymous v. Anonymous
...have been well established. a. the mother's station in life b. the father's financial ability This Court decided in Fowler v. Rizzuto, 205 Misc. 1088, 132 N.Y.S.2d 29, that the filiation order is necessarily limited by the mother's station in life. However, even with that injunction in mind......
- MTR. OF ST. PAUL PROP. ASSN. v. BD., ZONING APPEALS
-
Schaschlo v. Taishoff
...would make within the limitations of the New York City Criminal Courts Act, art. V, § 61, subd. 4, as construed by Fowler v. Rizzuto, 205 Misc. 1088, 132 N.Y.S.2d 29. The Court of Special Sessions in reliance on the Fowler case did not inquire into the financial means of the father but limi......