Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel

• Decision Date: 29 November 1967
• Citation: 286 N.Y.S.2d 278,20 N.Y.2d 925,233 N.E.2d 292
• Parties: , 233 N.E.2d 292 Lewis S. ROSENSTIEL, Appellant-Respondent, v. Susan L. ROSENSTIEL, Respondent-Appellant. Susan L. ROSENSTIEL, Respondent-Appellant, v. Lewis S. ROSENSTIEL, Appellant-Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 278

286 N.Y.S.2d 278

20 N.Y.2d 925, 233 N.E.2d 292

Lewis S. ROSENSTIEL, Appellant-Respondent, v. Susan L. ROSENSTIEL, Respondent-Appellant.

Susan L. ROSENSTIEL, Respondent-Appellant, v. Lewis S. ROSENSTIEL, Appellant-Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 29, 1967.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 28 A.D.2d 651, 280 N.Y.S.2d 624.

Cross-appeals were taken to the Court of Appeals.

Saxe, Bacon & Bolan, New York City (Roy M. Cohn, Daniel J. Driscoll, John A. Vassallo and Shirley R. Levittan, New York City, of counsel), for appellant-cross-respondents.

Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon, New York City (Louis Nizer, Walter S. Beck, Herbert N. Bobrow, Theodore H. Friedman, New York City, of counsel), for respondent-cross-appellant.

Consolidated actions were brought for an annulment and for an injunction.

In an earlier judgment, dated June 9, 1964, the Supreme Court at a Special and Trial Term had granted husband an annulment of his marriage to wife, had dismissed her action to enjoin him from suing her for matrimonial relief in any jurisdiction outside New York and had expressly reserved jurisdiction until the final determination of all appeals, for purpose of determining the amounts which should be awarded for support, maintenance, and counsel fees. The Appellate Division by order entered November 5, 1964 reversed the judgment of June 9, 1964, dismissing annulment action, and reinstated the action for injunction. The order of the Appellate Division was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on July 9, 1965. (43 Misc.2d 462, 251 N.Y.S.2d 565, reversed 21 A.D.2d 635, 253 N.Y.S.2d 206, and affirmed 16 N.Y.2d 64, 262 N.Y.S.2d 86, 209 N.E.2d 709, 13 A.L.R.3d 1401.)

Thereafter, on motion by the wife, a trial was held to determine the amounts to be awarded for her support, maintenance, counsel fees, and disbursements.

Section 236 of the Domestic Relations Law, Consol.Laws, c. 14, provided that, in an action to annul a marriage, the court may direct the husband to provide suitably for the support of the wife as, in the court's discretion, justice requires, having regard to the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties, and that such a support award might be made notwithstanding refusal of the court to grant relief requested by the wife and notwithstanding misconduct on her part unless such misconduct itself would constitute grounds for separation or divorce.

The Supreme Court, Trial Term, New York County, Nathaniel T. Helman, J., entered a judgment directing the husband to pay $58,650 annually to the wife for her...