Keve v. Steinberg
| Decision Date | 21 September 1970 |
| Citation | 64 Misc.2d 141,314 N.Y.S.2d 273 |
| Parties | Harriet KEVE, Plaintiff, v. Gilbert F. STEINBERG, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
This is an application to modify a separation agreement made in June 1959. The agreement provided that the husband, the defendant here, was to pay $35 weekly to the wife for support of both her and their two children. The agreement further provided that if the wife remarried, the same sum would continue as support for the children.
The parties were divorced in June 1959, and the wife later remarried. After her remarriage, defendant husband continued to make payments of $35 per week for the support of the two children. Recently, however, (the parties have neglected to disclose the date) the husband discontinued payment of $17.50 of that amount when his daughter, now over 19 years of age, obtained full-time employment. This unilateral action of the defendant was based on that provision of the separation agreement which provided that:
'(i)n the event either of the children * * * become emancipated or permanently self-supporting, the obligation of the Husband for support shall be ($17.50) * * *'.
The wife now petitions for an order increasing the support payments for her son, who is now fifteen years of age, from $17.50 to $75 per week. By order dated August 24, 1970, the Court denied the application with leave to renew upon necessary papers which were omitted from the original application. Those papers have now been submitted by the parties.
It has been held that where a matrimonial decree provides for support of minor children until they become emancipated, the decree is not self-executing so as to leave it to the unilateral determination of one party whether the child has become emancipated. Rather, an application should be made to the Court to modify that decree. Goldman v. Goldman, 177 Misc. 1033, 32 N.Y.S.2d 736, revd. on other grounds, 268 App.Div. 765, 50 N.Y.S.2d 165. See also Stafford v. Stafford, 27 Misc.2d 9, 203 N.Y.S.2d 935. Among the reasons for this rule is that the emancipation of one child does not necessarily mean that the total amount of support should not remain the same for the other children in view of possible changes in the needs of the parties. Peters v. Peters, 14 A.D.2d 778, 219 N.Y.S.2d 906.
Here, however, the applicability of that rule is doubtful because the question arises under a separation agreement rather than a decree, and the agreement stipulates not only that the amount of support will be reduced, but also establishes the amount of the reduction. Olmstead v. Olmstead, 24 A.D.2d 605, 262 N.Y.S.2d 375, affd. 18 N.Y.2d 652, 273 N.Y.S.2d 76, 219 N.E.2d 428. In any event, no objection has yet been raised by the wife and the papers submitted on this motion do indicate that in all probability the daughter is in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilda G. v. Joseph G.
...an action to modify the support order if the remaining children needed greater support than the balance allowed. (Keve v. Steinberg, 64 Misc.2d 141, 314 N.Y.S.2d 273 (Sup.Ct. Nassau Co. 1970).) This circumstance is not present in this case since the decree provided for sixty-eight dollars p......
-
Launder v. Plastique
...in view of possible changes in the needs of the parties. Peters v. Peters, 14 A.D.2d 778, 219 N.Y.S.2d 906.' (Keve v. Steinberg, 64 Misc.2d 141, 314 N.Y.S.2d 273, 275). 'However, the fact that defendant is no longer liable for support of the daughter and the fact that defendant may not be l......