Murdock v. Settembrini
| Decision Date | 18 January 1968 |
| Parties | , 235 N.E.2d 220 In the Matter of Mary E. MURDOCK, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Charles L. SETTEMBRINI, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 26 A.D.2d 953, 276 N.Y.S.2d 376.
Scapolito & Solinger, Mount Vernon (George W. Scapolito, Mount Vernon, of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Rothenberg & Atkins, New York City (Michael B. Atkins, New York City, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
The proceeding was initiated on March 12, 1965 in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in a Court of Quarter Sessions, Union County, to secure support for the children of the petitioner and the respondent. The proceeding was referred to the Family Court of Westchester County, New York, pursuant to the Uniform Support of Dependents Act, Domestic Relations Law, Consol.Laws, c. 14, article 3--A.
The parties were married in New York. Thereafter they entered into a separation agreement under which the custody of seven children of the marriage was awarded to petitioner subject to visitation rights to respondent. The agreement provided that the respondent would pay $35 per week for the support, education, and maintenance of each child. Subsequently the petitioner procured a Mexican divorce from respondent and remarried. The petitioner was residing in Pennsylvania at the time she initiated the petition. At that time one of the children was residing with the respondent, and under the separation agreement the support payment for that child was suspended. As of the date of the filing of the initiating petition the respondent was in arrears in the sum of $1,940. Twelve weeks after the filing of the initiating petition two additional children went to reside with the respondent and under the separation agreement payments of support for those two children were suspended.
The Family Court, Albert L. Fiorillo, J., entered an order directing the respondent to pay the petitioner the sum of $5,430 as arrears, retroactive to March 12, 1965, and the sum of $1,000 for counsel fees, and struck out affirmative defense of the respondent that the petitioner had breached the separation agreement by wilfully denying the respondent visitation with the children.
The Appellate Division entered an order November 28, 1966 affirming the order of the Family Court.
The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals by permission of the Appellate Division. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Martin
...although there is no comparable provision in the Uniform Support Law. Finally, the Court of Appeals in Matter of Murdock v. Settembrini, 21 N.Y.2d 759, 288 N.Y.S.2d 234, 235 N.E.2d 220, affirmed the jurisdiction of the Family Court of utilize section 438 of the Family Court Act as its autho......
-
Mac Fadden v. Martini
...USDL proceeding and denies an application for counsel fees * * * * may be deemed to be overruled by Matter of Murdock v. Settembrini, 21 N.Y.2d 759, 288 N.Y.S.2d 234, 235 N.E.2d 220 (1968) in which Court of Appeals affirmed the award of counsel fees by the Family Court which applied section......
-
Schneider v. Schneider
...proceeding and denied an application for counsel fees. That case may be deemed to be overruled by Murdock v. Settembrini, 21 N.Y.2d 759, 288 N.Y.S.2d 234, 235 N.E.2d 220 (1968) in which the Court of Appeals affirmed the award of counsel fees by the Family Court which applied F.C.A. Sect. 43......
-
Martin v. Martin
...in various decisions to make certain provisions of article 4 applicable to USDL proceedings (see, e.g., Matter of Murdock v. Settembrini, 21 N.Y.2d 759, 288 N.Y.S.2d 234, 235 N.E.2d 220 [article 4 attorneys' fees provision applicable to USDL proceeding]; Matter of Schneider v. Schneider, 72......