Rosen v. Rosen

CourtNew York Domestic Relations Court
Writing for the CourtTIMONE
Citation2 Misc.2d 905,149 N.Y.S.2d 512
Decision Date02 March 1956
PartiesIn the Matter of Irene ROSEN, Petitioner, v. Sol ROSEN, Respondent.

Page 512

149 N.Y.S.2d 512
2 Misc.2d 905
In the Matter of Irene ROSEN, Petitioner,
v.
Sol ROSEN, Respondent.
Domestic Relations Court of City of New York, Family Court
Division, Bronx County.
March 2, 1956.

Page 513

Raymond L. Robinson, New York City, for petitioner.

Bernard Kaufman, New York City, for respondent.

TIMONE, Justice.

By order dated December 7, 1955 this Court directed the respondent husband to pay $27 per week for the support of his wife and child. The parties were then not represented by counsel and they did not inform the Court of a prior action for separation in the Supreme Court.

On this motion by the respondent husband, for a rehearing at which both parties are represented by counsel, it now appears that in an action in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, brought by the wife for separation she obtained an order dated September 17, 1954 awarding her temporary alimony of $20 per week for her support and for the support of a child then to be [2 Misc.2d 906] born. The parties reconciled in June 1955 and lived together until October, 1955 when they again separated. In the meantime when the case appeared on the calendar on September 15, 1955, it was marked 'off'. Following the second separation the husband made three weekly $20 payments to his wife and then stopped. In November 1955 the wife applied to this Court and on December 7, 1955 there was a hearing resulting in the above mentioned support order.

The respondent husband now urges that on the date of this Court's support order the Supreme Court action was pending and the order for temporary alimony in effect and that this Court therefore could make an order only 'within the limits of the order * * * of the supreme court'. Domestic Relations Court Act, § 137, subd. 2. The wife's position is that the reconciliation in June 1955 constituted as a matter of law a final termination by abandonment of the Supreme Court action and of the order pendante lite made therein.

A reconciliation following a final judgment of separation has been given the effect of merely suspending during the period of reconciliation, rather than completely terminating, the provision for the payment of alimony. Sommer v. Sommer, 248 App.Div. 827, 289 N.Y.S. 18, affirmed 274 N.Y. 539, 10 N.E.2d 539; Lowe v. Lowe, 279 App.Div. 852, 110 N.Y.S.2d 49. A reconciliation prior to final judgment but subsequent to an order for alimony pendente lite constitutes a waiver of alimony by the wife. Whether a separation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Heiter v. Heiter
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 26 Junio 1956
    ...denials are on information and belief. In order to satisfy the requirements of Rule 113, Rules of Civil Practice, the party opposing the [2 Misc.2d 905] motion must advance such facts as shall raise an issue. O'Meara Co. v. National Park Bank of New York, 239 N.Y. 386, 146 N.E. 636, 39 A.L.......
1 cases
  • Heiter v. Heiter
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 26 Junio 1956
    ...denials are on information and belief. In order to satisfy the requirements of Rule 113, Rules of Civil Practice, the party opposing the [2 Misc.2d 905] motion must advance such facts as shall raise an issue. O'Meara Co. v. National Park Bank of New York, 239 N.Y. 386, 146 N.E. 636, 39 A.L.......

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