Liebmann v. Liebmann

Citation243 N.Y.S.2d 558,19 A.D.2d 821
PartiesLoraine P. LIEBMANN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Herman LIEBMANN, Defendant-Appellant.
Decision Date29 October 1963
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

M. H. Halpern, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent.

R. Levine, New York City, for defendant-appellant.



Order, entered May 28, 1963, in a divorce action in which plaintiff-respondent wife had prevailed, resettling first ordering paragraph of the order of November 15, 1961, referring to a Special Referee to hear and report concerning the amount of permanent maintenance and support of plaintiff-respondent and maintenance, support and education of the infant child of the marriage, unanimously reversed on the law, without costs, the direction for a reference is vacated and application to resettle said order of November 15, 1961 is denied with leave to reapply for appropriate relief at Special Term, without costs. In the absence of a showing by plaintiff wife of changed circumstances, it would be proper to determine the level of support on the basis of the 1957 judgment of separation and antecedent separation agreement providing for $18,500 annually for the support of plaintiff and child (see Zlotlow v. Zlotlow, 1 A.D.2d 821, 149 N.Y.S.2d 51, app. den. 1 A.D.2d 950, 151 N.Y.S.2d 602). It is not sufficient simply to show a passage of time during which the child has grown and there has been general inflation of prices. Therefore, the 1957 judgment, in the absence of contrary direct evidence of impact in the standard of support, would still reflect the appropriate amount to be paid by defendant husband. Consequently, a reference was unnecessary (see, Zolinsky v. Zolinsky, 17 A.D.2d 158, 159, 232 N.Y.S.2d 873). The matter is remanded to Special Term for appropriate proceedings in the matter of fixing permanent alimony and support of child and for entry of judgment herein.

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Sacco v. Sacco
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • April 13, 1979
    ...Matter of Gould v. Hannan, 57 A.D.2d 517, 393 N.Y.S.2d 561, affd. 44 N.Y.2d 932, 408 N.Y.S.2d 313, 380 N.E.2d 145; Liebmann v. Liebmann, 19 A.D.2d 821, 243 N.Y.S.2d 558). Moreover, there has been no showing in this case of any unmet need of the children (see Matter of Fensterheim v. Fenster......
  • Adlerman v. Adlerman
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 13, 1966
    ...199). It is not enough that the child has grown or for that matter there has been a general inflation of prices. (Liebmann v. Liebmann, 19 A.D.2d 821, 243 N.Y.S.2d 558.) However, the fortuitous circumstance of the child's maturation during an inflationary period inevitably tends to increase......
  • Brody v. Brody
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • October 6, 1964
    ...child has entered college with the defendant directly paying his support there as provided in the judgment. (Cf. Liebmann v. Liebmann, 19 A.D.2d 821, 243 N.Y.S.2d 558). These were matters within the contemplation of the parties at the time of the entry of the judgment, and, under the circum......
  • Riposo v. Riposo
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 16, 1977
    ...(Matter of Gould v. Hannon, 57 A.D.2d 517, 518, 393 N.Y.S.2d 561, 563; Coen v. Coen, 56 A.D.2d 810, 393 N.Y.S.2d 13; Liebmann v. Liebmann, 19 A.D.2d 821, 243 N.Y.S.2d 558). In considering an application to increase support payments fixed in a separation agreement or in a judicial decree, th......
  • 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