Phillips v. Phillips

Decision Date18 October 1956
Citation138 N.E.2d 738,2 N.Y.2d 742,157 N.Y.S.2d 378
Parties, 138 N.E.2d 738 Grace R. PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. George M. PHILLIPS, also known as Martin George Phillips, Respondent.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 1 A.D.2d 393, 150 N.Y.S.2d 646.

The Supreme Court, Special Term, Edgar J. Nathan, Jr., J., entered an order granting the motion of the husband for examination of the wife, and she appealed.

The Appellate Division, Botein, J., affirmed the order and held that the Special Term properly permitted, by way of examination before trial, examination of the wife as to her property, income and assets, and correctly refused to limit such examination to her property, income, and assets during the period of cohabitation, on ground that the wife's subsequent circumstances were relevant. Cox, J., dissented.

The wife appealed to the Court of Appeals contending that a wife's separate property and resources, no part of which has been given to her by the husband, may not be considered in fixing the amount of permanent alimony, and that there should be a negative answer to certified question of the Appellate Division: 'In determining the amount of permanent alimony to be paid by a husband to a wife who was granted an interlocutory judgment of divorce, should the Court consider the wife's current income and assets no part of which had been given to her by the husband as a factor in determining the amount of such permanent alimony?'

Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin & Krim ( Louis Nizer and Walter Beck, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Hays, St. John, Abramson & Heilbron (Irwin Karp and Harold Epstein, of counsel), for defendant-respondent.

Order affirmed. Question certified answered in the affirmative.

All concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
72 cases
  • Leibowits v. Leibowits
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 16, 1983
    ...by crushing economic and psychological pressures" (Phillips v. Phillips, 1 A.D.2d 393, 397, 150 N.Y.S.2d 646, affd. 2 N.Y.2d 742, 157 N.Y.S.2d 378, 138 N.E.2d 738). Absent the authority provided in section 234 of the Domestic Relations Law, a spouse who seeks to prevent the dissipation of m......
  • Kover v. Kover
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 13, 1972
    ...But, as the Appellate Division noted in 1956 in Phillips v. Phillips (1 A.D.2d 393, 395, 150 N.Y.S.2d 646, 649, affd. 2 N.Y.2d 742, 157 N.Y.S.2d 378, 138 N.E.2d 738), the times have changed, owing not alone to the coequal status which a married woman today shares with her husband but also t......
  • Conner v. Conner
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 31, 1983
    ...N.Y.2d 632, 637-638, 376 N.Y.S.2d 443, 339 N.E.2d 143; Phillips v. Phillips, 1 A.D.2d 393, 395, 150 N.Y.S.2d 646, affd. 2 N.Y.2d 742, 157 N.Y.S.2d 378, 138 N.E.2d 738; Brownstein v. Brownstein, 25 A.D.2d 205, 209, 268 N.Y.S.2d 115). The courts failed, however, to authorize such rehabilitati......
  • McMains v. McMains
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 18, 1965
    ...relevant factors including the circumstances of both parties (Phillips v. Phillips, 1 A.D.2d 393, 150 N.Y.S.2d 646, affd. 2 N.Y.2d 742, 157 N.Y.S.2d 378, 138 N.E.2d 738; Winkler v. Winkler, 13 A.D.2d 924, 216 N.Y.S.2d 307, affd. 11 N.Y.2d 693, 225 N.Y.S.2d 763, 180 N.E.2d 915). A wife is no......
  • 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