Garbarino v. Keller
| Citation | 189 N.Y.S.2d 829,20 Misc.2d 303 |
| Parties | Frances GARBARINO v. Wallace KELLER. |
| Decision Date | 24 August 1959 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Davidow & Davidow, Patchogue, for plaintiff.
Benjamin Greshin, Smithtown, for defendant.
Defendant moves to open his default and vacate a judgment entered in favor of his former wife against him for past due installments under a separation agreement for the support of his five children.
The separation agreement was made in October 1952. In October, 1954, without defendant's consent, plaintiff removed the five children to Florida and there remarried and remained until 1958. She claims she was entitled to leave New York State because the defendant had breached the agreement by being in default for at least one month before she left.
The law is quite clear that as to support payments due under an agreement, the denial of visitation rights reserved in the agreement will suspened the payments until the right is restored. Duryea v. Bliven, 122 N.Y. 567, 25 N.E. 908; Magrill v. Magrill, 16 Misc.2d 896, 184 N.Y.S.2d 516. It does not suspend the father's obligation to support his children, which may otherwise be enforced, but it does relieve him of the contractual liability.
Here the defendant, though undeserving from a social viewpoint, has a defense which will probably prove to be successful in reducing the amount of the judgment. This he is entitled to present if his default was not willful.
He says he was served with the summons and thought he had to go to plaintiff's attorneys' office to respond. Because he was displeased over the actions and attitudes toward him by these attorneys in the past he did not answer the summons. This, from a person against whom eight prior judgments had been entered by other creditors, is hardly proof of mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect.
Yet because the judgment was entered for only $152 less than the greatest amount that would have been due if no suspension of payments for loss of visitation rights occurred, I believe the interests of justice require that the default be opened.
The plaintiff claims that the only reason defendant seeks to vacate the judgment is to release his bank account, containing some $1,500 from the levy under execution on the judgment and to render himself judgment proof. Such a result should not be permitted to occur in this case. This husband not only has not supported his children, by his own admission; he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abreu v. Abreu
...199; Richards v. Richard, 5 Misc.2d 46, 157 N.Y.S.2d 874; Webster v. Webster, 14 Misc.2d 64, 176 N.Y.S.2d 799; Garbarino v. Keller, 20 Misc.2d 303, 189 N.Y.S.2d 829; Snelwar v. Snelwar, 26 Misc.2d 967, 208 N.Y.S.2d 555). From the authority of this line of cases both sides take comfort--the ......
-
Greene v. Greene
...interposed. (Duryea v. Bliven, supra; Magrill v. Magrill, App.Term, 16 Misc.2d 896, 901, 184 N.Y.S.2d 516, 521; Garbarino v. Keller, 20 Misc.2d 303, 189 N.Y.S.2d 829.) It appears however that when the provisions of a separation agreement containing such dependent covenants are incorporated ......
-
Werber v. Werber
...117 N.Y.S.2d 906, aff'd 280 App.Div. 986, 117 N.Y.S.2d 473; Magrill v. Magrill, 16 Misc.2d 896, 184 N.Y.S.2d 516; Garbarino v. Keller, 20 Misc.2d 303, 189 N.Y.S.2d 829; Morgan v. Morgan, 2 Cir., 201 F.2d 868; Borax v. Borax, 4 N.Y.2d 113, 172 N.Y.S.2d 805, 149 N.E.2d 326). And it is also el......
- De Virgilio v. Niosi