Hearst v. Hearst

Decision Date26 February 1957
Citation3 A.D.2d 706,159 N.Y.S.2d 753
PartiesSandra Rambeau HEARST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George R. HEARST, Defendant-Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

I. I. Erdheim, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.

R. G. Zeller, New York City, for defendant-respondent.

Before PECK, P. J., and BREITEL, VALENTE and BASTOW, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment, so far as appealed from, unanimously affirmed with costs and disbursements to the respondent. While the fixation of temporary alimony is never determinative of the fact or quantum of the obligation to support as it may be resolved after plenary trial, there is on this record no showing of prejudicial error. A wife is not entitled to share in a husband's income as such, but is entitled to support on the basis of the established standard of living, if otherwise reasonable, within the income of the husband. There are also many other factors to be considered. See e.g.,Phillips v. Phillips, 1 A.D.2d 393, 150 N.Y.S.2d 646. Plaintiff shows on this record, and in her argument, only that the husband has an income many times larger than the permanent alimony allotted to her. That is not enough. Order filed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Kover v. Kover
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 13, 1972
    ...569, 570; see, also, Burr v. Burr, 7 Hill 207, 211; cf. Hearst v. Hearst, 3 N.Y.2d 967, 169 N.Y.S.2d 36, 146 N.E.2d 792, affg. 3 A.D.2d 706, 159 N.Y.S.2d 753.) But, as the Appellate Division noted in 1956 in Phillips v. Phillips (1 A.D.2d 393, 395, 150 N.Y.S.2d 646, 649, affd. 2 N.Y.2d 742,......
  • Millner v. Millner
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • May 15, 1969
    ...the pre-separation standard of living of the parties--and the authorities are agreed that this cannot be done. Thus, in Hearst v. Hearst, 3 A.D.2d 706, 159 N.Y.S.2d 753, aff'd 3 N.Y.2d 967, 169 N.Y.S.2d 36, 146 N.E.2d 792, noting (of course) that there were other factors also to be consider......
  • Orenstein v. Orenstein
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 29, 1966
    ...207 N.Y.S.2d 940, 942, affd. 13 A.D.2d 924, 216 N.Y.S.2d 307, affd. 11 N.Y.2d 693, 225 N.Y.S.2d 763, 180 N.E.2d 915; Hearst v. Hearst, 3 A.D.2d 706, 159 N.Y.S.2d 753.) We reduced as excessive an award of temporary alimony in this case (24 A.D.2d 753, 263 N.Y.S.2d 879) from $175 per week, pl......
  • Kay v. Kay
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 30, 1975
    ...to maintain it, provides the standard for permanent alimony payments. (Tirrell v. Tirrell, 232 N.Y. 224, 133 N.E. 569; Hearst v. Hearst, 3 A.D.2d 706, 159 N.Y.S.2d 753, affd. 3 N.Y.2d 967, 169 N.Y.S.2d 36, 146 N.E.2d 792; Hunter v. Hunter, 10 A.D.2d 291, 198 N.Y.S.2d 1008; Bittson v. Bittso......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT