Goldberg v. Berger
| Decision Date | 09 December 1968 |
| Citation | 31 A.D.2d 637,295 N.Y.S.2d 975 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Glorida GOLDBERG, Appellant, v. Seymour BERGER, Respondent. In the Matter of Gloria SINCLAIR, mother o/b/o Margery Berger, Appellant, v. Seymour BERGER, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Bernstein, Seawell, Kaplan & Block, New York City, for petitioner-appellant.
George J. Sandler, Hempstead, for respondent-respondent.
Before CHRIST, Acting P.J., and BRENNAN, BENJAMIN, MUNDER and MARTUSCELLO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
The appeals are by respondent's former wife (1) from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, made in the first above entitled proceeding and dated February 3, 1967, which (a) increased from $40 to $60 the weekly amount respondent was directed by a prior order of said court, dated March 11, 1966, to pay for support of the parties' child and (b) denied an application to direct respondent to pay arrears for support of the child which had accrued under a 1961 order of the former Domestic Relations Court of the City of New York, Kings County, and (2) from so much of an order of the Family Court Kings County, made in the second above entitled proceeding and dated March 7, 1967, as denied petitioner's application for recovery of the same arrears, without prejudice.
Order dated February 3, 1967 modified, on the law and the facts, (1) by adding to the first decretal paragraph thereof a provision that the payments for the child's support shall be increased to $80 per week commencing December 23, 1968 and (2) by striking out the second decretal paragraph thereof, which denied the application as to arrears, and substituting therefor a decretal paragraph granting said application and directing respondent to pay, through the Accounts Division of the Family Court, Nassau County, $2,720 in arrears which became due and owing prior to the commencement of the Uniform Support of Dependents Law proceeding in Florida. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs.
Order dated March 7, 1967 affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. No opinion.
A child is entitled to support from its father not only in accord with its needs but also in accord with the father's means. This encompasses his ability to pay in relation to his wealth. The rule is the same whether the support proceeding is a local one or one brought, as was the first above entitled proceeding, under the Uniform Support of Dependents Law (Domestic Relations Law § 34; Family Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kern v. Kern
...in support of his children (Family Court Act, section 413; Handel v. Handel, 26 N.Y.2d 853, 309 N.Y.S.2d 599, Matter of Goldberg v. Berger, 31 A.D.2d 637, 295 N.Y.S.2d 975, Matter of Swerdloff v. Weintraub, 26 A.D.2d 826, 273 N.Y.S.2d For the foregoing reasons the court will entertain petit......
- Cavanagh v. Galamison
-
Katz v. Katz
...Matter of Handel v. Handel, 32 A.D.2d 946, 304 N.Y.S.2d 76, affd. 26 N.Y.2d 853, 309 N.Y.S.2d 599, 258 N.E.2d 94; Matter of Goldberg v. Berger, 31 A.D.2d 637, 295 N.Y.S.2d 975; Matter of Kern v. Kern, 65 Misc.2d 765, 771, 319 N.Y.S.2d 178; cf. Matter of Gould v. Hannan, 44 N.Y.2d 932, 408 N......
-
Giacopelli v. Giacopelli
...in court, and the extent of the father's actual visitation prior to the move (Abraham v. Abraham, supra; Matter of Goldberg v. Berger, 31 A.D.2d 637, 295 N.Y.S.2d 975; Matter of Nicolette G. v. Raymond S., 90 Misc.2d 848, 396 N.Y.S.2d 134). Although it was error to ignore these issues at th......