Rosenzweig v. Rosenzweig
| Decision Date | 28 September 1955 |
| Citation | 145 N.Y.S.2d 810 |
| Parties | Anna ROSENZWEIG v. Samuel ROSENZWEIG. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Goldstein & Goldstein, New York City, for plaintiff.
Rothenberg, Atkins & Koss, New York City, for defendant.
Upon all the evidence I find the plaintiff entitled to a decree of separation and to the sum of $75 weekly as and for permanent alimony. In arriving at the conclusion as to alimony the court views the moneys received by the defendant pursuant to the agreement of May 1955 between him and his union to be moneys realized on account of the principal obligation set out in said agreement. Such union payments are therefore not considered to be any part of the defendant's income. The alimony here provided for is based upon the assets, means, financial requirements and the condition of health of both of the parties as well as upon the income of the defendant, which at the present time is limited to interest on bank deposits. There is no authority for defendant's contention that permanent alimony must be gauged by and founded upon defendant's net income alone. On the contrary, the worth of the defendant is very much a factor in calculating reasonable alimony. Rose v. Rose, Sup., 117 N.Y.S.2d 32; Bittson v. Bittson, Sup., 138 N.Y.S.2d 294, affirmed 285 App.Div. 1061, 140 N.Y.S.2d 508.
The evidence discloses that in addition to other assets this defendant has had large sums of money on deposit in many banks. He withdrew therefrom substantial sums from time to time, closed accounts opened new ones, transferred funds from one account to another and also pocketed large sums of money which he used for various purposes. Defendant, in explanation, insists all this was not the result of an effort to hide moneys in order to avoid or lessen alimony payments but that it constituted a plan of action to conceal assets from possible seizure by the union of which he had been president and with which he was then in litigation. He also ascribes the trouble with the union as the reason for his failure to disclose several of these bank accounts at a hearing before Mr. Justice Johnson.
However, in view of this course of conduct and the possibility that it may be repeated to the prejudice of the plaintiff, and upon all the evidence the court finds that plaintiff is entitled to security in the sum of $6500, to be in the form of a bank deposit in said sum to secure future payments of alimony.
Since there is now pending...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
K. v. K.
...115, 120--121 (1st Dept.); Levine v. Levine, 57 Misc.2d 978, 981, 293 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1002--1003 (Sup.Ct., Kings); Rosenzweig v. Rosenzweig, 145 N.Y.S.2d 810, 811 (Sup.Ct., Kings). This principle, well-established in the cited cases involving alimony, applies a fortiori to child support (Ker......
-
Kay v. Kay
...standard of living simply because he voluntarily maintains his finances in a form that limits the income they produce. (See Rosenzweig v. Rosenzweig, 145 N.Y.S.2d 810, affd. 3 A.D.2d 732, 160 N.Y.S.2d 817; Rose v. Rose, supra; Turecamo v. Turecamo, 15 Misc.2d 923, 186 N.Y.S.2d 318.) The cas......
-
Yannotti v. Yannotti
...too, is a factor to be considered in determining alimony (Phillips v. Phillips, 1 A.D.2d 393, 150 N.Y.S.2d 646, supra; Rosenzweig v. Rosenzweig, Sup., 145 N.Y.S.2d 810, affirmed 3 A.D.2d 732, 160 N.Y.S.2d 817), and the examination as to this item is allowed. Item 12 is a catchall and is The......
-
Gladstone v. Gladstone
...into account in fixing the amount of support for his children. (Cf. Patton v. Patton, 5 A.D.2d 860, 171 N.Y.S.2d 536; Rosenzweig v. Rosenzweig, Sup., 145 N.Y.S.2d 810, aff'd 3 A.D.2d 732, 160 N.Y.S.2d 817; Bittson v. Bittson, Sup., 138 N.Y.S.2d 294, aff'd 285 App.Div. 1061, 140 N.Y.S.2d App......