Levine v. Levine

• Decision Date: 19 October 1965
• Citation: 263 N.Y.S.2d 997,48 Misc.2d 15
• Court: New York City Court
• Parties: Janet LEVINE, Plaintiff, v. Morris LEVINE, Defendant.

Page 997

263 N.Y.S.2d 997

48 Misc.2d 15

Janet LEVINE, Plaintiff, v. Morris LEVINE, Defendant.

Civil Court of City of New York, Trial Term, New York County, Part 19.

Oct. 19, 1965.

Robert M. Ginsberg, New York City, for plaintiff.

Field, Florea, O'Rourke & Schaeffer, New York City (Robert S. Field, New, York City, of Counsel), for defendant.

HAROLD BIRNS, Judge.

Plaintiff instituted this suit to recover counsel fees as necessaries. The action was tried before me without a jury.

At common law a wife had the right to recover from her husband for necessaries, and those necessaries always included counsel fees (Horn v. Schmalholz, 150 App.Div. 333, 134 N.Y.S. 652; Handelman v. Peabody, 285 App.Div. 689, 140 N.Y.S.2d 374; Gallin v. Stafford, 10 A.D.2d 915, 200 N.Y.S.2d 498, aff'd 9 N.Y.2d 894, 216 N.Y.S.2d 705, 175 N.E.2d 832).

An alternative remedy was provided by statute enabling the wife to obtain counsel fees prospectively for the prosecution of a matrimonial action or proceeding (Civil Practice Act, sec. 1169).

Over the years the courts developed the doctrine that while these alternative remedies were available, the wife had to choose between one remedy or the other, and could not rely upon both (Turner v. Woolworth, 221 N.Y. 425, 117 N.E. 814; Dravecka v. Richard, 267 N.Y. 180, 196 N.E. 17; Tompkins & Lauren v. Glass, 44 Misc.2d 239, 253 N.Y.S.2d 465).

So the law stood until recently when the legislature enacted sec. 237 of the Domestic Relations Law, effective September 1, 1963.

In Tompkins & Lauren v. Glass (supra) Judge Greenfield of this court decided a case where the cause of action accrued prior to the effective date of said section 237, and raised, but did not answer, the question 'whether Section 237 of the Domestic Relations Law now embodies the exclusive remedy and has eliminated the separate common law action'.

That precise question is raised now in this case.

In the Tompkins case Judge Greenfield stated with respect to the law as it stood prior to 1963, that when no application was made in the matrimonial suit, the wife and her attorney were not barred from commencing a plenary suit.

In the case before me, it appeared the plaintiff, using borrowed funds, paid $3500, counsel fees to a firm of attorneys to prosecute a separation action in the Supreme Court, Kings County, in 1964, wherein she was successful in securing a final decree of separation, alimony for herself and maintenance and support for her two children. No application was made to the Supreme Court for counsel fees.

The defendant asserts that section 237 of the Domestic Relations Law now provides the exclusive procedure for an allowance of counsel fees, and therefore no plenary action, such as this, for counsel fees can be maintained.

Defendant relies upon the following language in section 237 (a), Domestic Relations Law:

'In any action or proceeding brought (1) to annul a marriage or to declare the nullity of a void marriage, or (2) for a separation, or (3) for a divorce, or (4) to declare the validity or nullity of a judgment of divorce rendered against the wife who was the defendant in any action outside the State of New York and did not appear therein where the wife asserts the nullity of such foreign judgment, or (5) by a wife to enjoin the prosecution in any other jurisdiction of an action for a divorce, or (6) upon any application to annul or modify an order for counsel fees and expenses made pursuant to this subdivision provided, the court may direct the husband, or where an action for annulment is maintained after the death of the husband may direct the person or persons maintaining the action, to pay such sum or sums of money to enable the wife to carry on or defend the action or proceeding as, in the court's discretion, justice requires, having regard to the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties. Such direction must be made in the final judgment in such action or proceeding, or by one or more orders from time to time before final judgment, or by both such order or orders and the final judgment.' (Emphasis supplied.)

It is the word 'must' upon which the defendant rests his argument that the wife's right to institute a common law action for such necessaries as counsel fees no longer exists.

This language should be contrasted with the language of section 1169 of the Civil Practice Act (no longer in effect, which reads as follows):

'In an action for divorce, separation or annulment, or to declare the nullity of a void marriage brought in the lifetime of both parties, the court, in its discretion, during the pendency thereof, from time to time, may make and modify an order or orders requiring the husband to pay any sum or sums of money necessary to enable the wife to carry on or defend the action, or to provide suitably for the education and maintenance of the children of the marriage, or for the support of the wife, having regard to the circumstances of the respective parties'. (Emphasis supplied.)

Said section 1169 was an antecedent of section 237 of the Domestic Relations Law (See Practice commentary on said latter section by Prof. David D. Siegel in McKinney's Consolidated Laws of N. Y., Book 14).

Since there are no authoritiative cases after September 1, 1963 bearing on the question raised herein, except Tompkins & Lauren, supra, submitted by counsel, or found by the court, it is appropriate to consider in part the legislative study which preceded the enactment of section 237, Domestic Relations Law.

In general terms this latter section was designed to deal with counsel fees (excepting in enforcement proceedings): (1) prior to final judgment, (2) on application to modify final judgment, and (3) on habeas corpus proceedings affecting children of the marriage (Legislative Document (1962) No. 34, page 309).

As stated hereinbefore, under section 1169, Civil Practice Act, provision could be made prospectively for all legal services to be rendered during the pendency of the action. It did not allow for an award for past services (Christensen v. Christensen, 39 Misc.2d 370, 240 N.Y.S.2d 797). The question of counsel fees, however, could be referred to the trial court for determination (Sussman v. Sussman, 13 A.D.2d 464, 212 N.Y.S.2d 95; Fisher v. Fisher, 223 App.Div. 19, 227 N.Y.S. 345).

The recent enactment of section 237 of the Domestic Relations Law can be traced to the case of Ranaudo v. Ranaudo, 20 Misc.2d 963, 190 N.Y.S.2d 285, where the wife sued her husband for annulment. Prior to the trial the wife was able to borrow counsel fees from her father with an understanding that an application would be made to the court and the father repaid from the amount awarded by the court. Thus no application for counsel fees was made in the papers which framed the issues, nor was there even a reservation of the right to award counsel fees retroactively in the final order. Application for counsel fee was made at the trial. Over argument that this would be payment for past services, Mr. Justice Meyer held that such services were 'necessaries', provision for which would be made prior to the final order in the matrimonial action. He construed section 1140-a, Civil Practice Act, as being sufficiently broad to allow the court to grant this application as 'an award * * * for support of the the wife by the husband as justice requires'.

Thereafter, because of the 'verbosity and complexity of our laws on these subjects' of alimony, custody, support and counsel fees, Mr. Justice Meyer called this matter to the attention of the Joint Legislative Committee on Matrimonial and Family Laws (Legislative Document (1961) No. 19, pp. 76 & 77). He was instrumental in preparing legislation which became section 237, Domestic Relations Law. The bill which first came to grips with these problems was Senate Pr. 2489, Int. 2360; Assembly Pr. 3607, Int. 3477, (1961) which proposed to repeal certain sections from 1140 through 1170-b of the Civil Practice Act and substitute in place thereof certain new sections relating to the problems of alimony, both temporary and permanent, and custody and maintenance of children. The enactment of section 237 followed this effort (Legislative Document (1962) No. 34, p. 309).

It appears then that the said Joint Legislative Committee was concerned solely with simplifying and consolidating the statutory law relating to various applications theretofore made in matrimonial actions or proceedings under the Civil Practice Act. There appears to have been no attempt to deal with existing common law rights and remedies.

If that is so then the sentence 'Such direction must be made in the final judgment in such action or proceeding, or by one or more orders from time to time before final judgment, or by both such order or orders and the final judgment' must be construed as coming into play only when an application to that...