Frisch v. Frisch

• Decision Date: 26 April 1982
• Citation: 449 N.Y.S.2d 540,87 A.D.2d 883
• Parties: Rochelle FRISCH, Respondent, v. Emerick FRISCH, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 540

449 N.Y.S.2d 540

87 A.D.2d 883

Rochelle FRISCH, Respondent, v. Emerick FRISCH, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

April 26, 1982.

Emerick Frisch, pro se.

Fink, Kaminsky & Solomon, Brooklyn (Leon B. Fink, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.

Before THOMPSON, J. P., and BROWN, NIEHOFF and BOYERS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a support proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated June 13, 1980, which, after a hearing, directed him to pay petitioner wife $100 weekly for support and maintenance, to pay all medical and dental bills incurred by petitioner and their child, to pay all of petitioner's utility bills, and to pay the mortgage on the marital residence.

Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to Family Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith. Pending further action by the Family Court, appellant shall continue to pay $100 per week support and maintenance to the petitioner and child and shall pay the mortgage payments on the marital home as they fall due.

On the court's own motion, all reference to the attorney listed on the appellant's brief is deemed stricken and he is not to be considered as acting as an attorney for the appellant in any proceeding in this matter. It is further ordered, on the court's own motion, that any papers to be served on the appellant in connection with this matter may be served upon him personally or by ordinary mail at the following address:

Emmerick Frisch

c/o Moses Frisch

1414 46th Street

Brooklyn, New York

until such time as appellant files with the Family Court, Kings County, and serves upon the petitioner's counsel a notice of appearance on his behalf by an attorney, duly inscribed by said attorney.

It appears that the appellant did not retain the attorney listed on his brief. Appellant was less than candid with this court about who, in fact, prepared his papers, when he responded to a direct question from the Justice presiding at the oral argument of the appeal in this case. The attorney's name should be removed in order to spare him any further embarrassment in connection with this matter.

We are in agreement with the Family Court that the appellant should make the mortgage payments on the marital home, make alimony and maintenance payments, and pay certain utility bills and all the medical and dental care bills of the wife and child. However, the judgment, should not be open ended. (See 22 NYCRR 699.9 Troiano v. Troiano, 87 A.D.2d 588, 447...