Lewis v. Lewis
Decision Date | 26 March 1956 |
Citation | 2 Misc.2d 849,151 N.Y.S.2d 894 |
Parties | Appeal from an order of the Children's Court of Nassau County, in the Matter of Audrey LEWIS, Respondent (Petitioner) v. Edward LEWIS, Appellant (Respondent). |
Court | New York Supreme Court |
Otto B. Schmidt, New York City, for appellant Edward Lewis.
Joseph D. Stim, Plainview, for petitioner-respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of the Children's Court, Nassau County, dated December 8, 1955, directing appellant to support the two children of the parties, aged eight and ten years respectively, now living with respondent, formerly the wife of appellant.
The facts, with few unimportant exceptions, are not in dispute. On May 4, 1955, the parties, then husband and wife, living apart, entered into a separation agreement. One of the provisions thereof required that the father pay $150 monthly for the support of the two children, nothing for the support of the wife. Thereafter, and on May 9, 1955, a judgment of absolute divorce was entered in the Circuit Court, Tenth Judicial District, State of Alabama, wherein the wife in this proceeding was the complainant, the husband the respondent. The separation agreement dated May 4, 1955, was made a part of the Alabama judgment. Petitioner, thereafter, returned to Nassau County, New York, where she again took up residence with the two children and on November 11, 1955 brought on this proceeding by information.
After a trial of the issues by the Children's Court judge, an order was entered in the Children's Court requiring the appellant to pay $300 per month for the support of the two children.
Appellant bases his appeal on two points. First, that the Children's Court lacked jurisdiction to make the order appealed from in the absence of a showing that the children were delinquent, neglected or likely to become a public charge. Such has not been shown in this case. Second, that $3,600 per year out of an annual income of $9,000 gross per year (appellant's income) is excessive and unreasonable.
There can be no question as to jurisdiction of the Children's Court. The Children's Court of the State of New York possesses jurisdiction to order support of an infant by virtue of its creating act.
' § 6. Jurisdiction
* * *
* * *
This power of the Children's Court is independent of that of the Supreme Court in matrimonial matters and has been broadly exercised ' § 33-i. Divorces; separations; annulments
.'
Harless v. Harless, 192 Misc. 5, 80 N.Y.S.2d 98; Langerman v. Langerman, 303 N.Y. 465, 104 N.E.2d 857; Maxim v. Maxim, 203 Misc. 610, 118 N.Y.S.2d 541; Matter of Pinto, 203 Misc. 244, 245, 117 N.Y.S.2d 844, 845; Geiger v. Geiger, Sup., 140 N.Y.S.2d 228.
In Langerman v. Langerman, supra, the Court of Appeals held that the Supreme Court had no inherent jurisdiction to compel support of children. Jurisdiction of the court in matrimonial actions is a creation of statute. The court acquires jurisdiction to compel support as an incident to matrimonial actions. The court decided that the Domestic Relations Court had sole jurisdiction of an action brought for support of children. In Nassau County this by implication would be the Children's Court.
' § 30-a. Powers
(Emphasis mine.)
The obligation of a father to support his children has been enforced since time immemorial. On April 10, 1922, when the Children's Court Act became the law in New York, subd. 1 of sec. 31 of that act declared a husband chargeable with the support of his children; the mother is not chargeable with support in the absence of proof that the father is dead or incapable of supporting his children or cannot be found within the state. The Children's Court, however, has no jurisdiction to amend support provisions of a local or foreign divorce decree.
Amendment of support provisions of a local divorce decree is a customary power in state courts, by statute (e. g. Civil Practice Act §§ 1155, 1170). Amendment of foreign decrees, by a local court, is permissible within the limits of the full faith and credit clause, if courts of the state of origin possess power to amend their own decree. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Hunt, 320 U.S. 430, 64 S.Ct. 208, 88 L.Ed. 149; People of State of New York ex rel. Halvey v. Halvey, 330 U.S. 610, 67 S.Ct. 903, 91 L.Ed. 1133.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carter v. Carter
... ... Insofar as the cases dealing with this question (see Matter of Garcy, 19 A.D.2d 811, 243 N.Y.S.2d 464; Matter of Lewis v. Lewis, 2 Misc.2d 849, 151 N.Y.S.2d 894, affd., 5 A.D.2d 674, 168 N.Y.S. 473, mot. for rearg. den., 5 A.D.2d 777, 169 N.Y.S.2d 1014, app. dsmd., 4 ... ...
-
Burns v. Burns
... ... 1085, 127 N.Y.S.2d 278 (1953). The supreme court does not have any statutory authority to modify an out of state decree. (In the Matter of Lewis v. Lewis, 2 Misc.2d 849, 151 N.Y.S.2d 894, aff. 5 A.D.2d 674, 168 N.Y.S.2d 473 (1958) mot. for lv. to app. den. 6 A.D.2d 690, 174 N.Y.S.2d 888, app ... ...
-
Warden v. Warden
... ... See, [68 Misc.2d 1086] Lewis v. Lewis, 2 Misc.2d 849, 151 N.Y.S.2d 894 (1956), aff'd, 5 A.D.2d 674, 168 N.Y.S.2d 473 (1957), appeal dismissed, 4 N.Y.2d 872, 174 N.Y.S.2d 241, 150 ... ...
- Lewis v. Lewis