Liebmann v. Liebmann
Decision Date | 22 October 1964 |
Citation | 253 N.Y.S.2d 152,22 A.D.2d 663 |
Parties | Loraine P. LIEBMANN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Herman LIEBMANN, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Seymour J. Shyman, New York City, of counsel (Frederick E. M. Ballon, New York City, with him on the brief, Ballon, Stoll & Shyman, New York City, attorneys), for appellant.
Morris H. Halpern, New York City, for respondent.
Before McNALLY, J. P., and STEVENS, EAGER, STEUER and STALEY, JJ.
Order and judgment awarding the plaintiff-wife alimony and support in the sum of $15,500 per year, annual maintenance of $7,000 for the child of the marriage and a fee of $12,500 to plaintiff's counsel, modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of eliminating the retroactive provisions and reducing the counsel fee to $7,500, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. There is a sufficient showing of change of circumstances since the award on stipulation in the separation action but it cannot be determined with any degree of certainty on this record when they materialized to the extent of warranting a retroactive award. (See Liebmann v. Liebmann, 19 A.D.2d 821, 243 N.Y.S.2d 558; 18 A.D.2d 798; 18 A.D.2d 611, 234 N.Y.S.2d 604).
Order and judgment modified, etc.
We agree with so much of the disposition as reduces the counsel fee to $7,500 and strikes out the retroactive provisions of the order. But we would go further and deny any increase in alimony and support of the child. When this case was in this Court before on the appeal from the judgment of divorce, this Court reversed that provision of the judgment which ordered a reference as to permanent alimony and support for the child of the marriage and directed the court to fix the same. It appeared that the plaintiff wife had previously obtained a judgment of separation and alimony had been awarded therein based on a stipulation. In directing Trial Term to fix permanent alimony, this Court had this to say, in connection with the question of whether there was any change in circumstances warranting any increase in the support provisions found in the separation agreement and incorporated in the separation action judgment:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bates v. Bates
...McNeill, Dom.Rel.Ct.N.Y., 35 N.Y.S.2d 585, at page 587. See also: Cannon v. Cannon, 190 Misc. 677, 72 N.Y.S.2d 225; Liebmann v. Liebmann, 22 A.D.2d 663, 253 N.Y.S.2d 152. Secondly in the case of Reiss v. Reiss, 23 A.D.2d 692, 257 N.Y.S.2d 729, the court held that on an increase petition, a ......
-
Adlerman v. Adlerman
...therefor subsists within the limits of his financial capacity. (Kraunz v. Kraunz, 293 N.Y. 152, 56 N.E.2d 90; Liebmann v. Liebmann, 22 A.D.2d 663, 253 N.Y.S.2d 152.) Here the plaintiff has itemized the needs of the child. The fact of general inflation simply serves to confirm that the sum p......
- Kavrecich v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Indemnification Corp.
-
Liebmann v. Liebmann
...Court of Appeals of New York. May 20, 1965. Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 22 A.D.2d 663, 253 N.Y.S.2d 152. Wife brought action for The Supreme Court, Special and Trial Term, New York County, Thomas C. Chimera, J., entered an order and judgment granting a d......