Sacknoff v. Sacknoff
| Decision Date | 19 November 1959 |
| Parties | , 163 N.E.2d 144 Lillian SACKNOFF, Appellant, v. Samuel SACKNOFF, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 6 A.D.2d 879, 177 N.Y.S.2d 756.
Divorced husband, after learning of secret marriage of daughter, made a motion to modify divorce judgment so as to reduce amount that he was directed to pay for support of divorced wife and their daughter.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, Special Term, William R. Hart, J., denied the motion, and the divorced husband appealed.
The Appellate Division modified the order on the law and the facts by deleting the words 'in all respects denied' from the first ordering paragraph, and by substituting therefor the words and figures 'granted to the extent of reducing the amount which defendant is required to pay from $25 a week to $15 a week, retroactive to November 29, 1957,' and affirmed the order, as so modified, and held that in light of the relative income of the parties and fact that the daughter had attained her majority, had married, and had moved from the home of the divorced wife, amount which divorced husband was directed to pay divorced wife should be reduced from $25 a week to $15 a week. Nolan, P. J., dissented.
The divorced wife appealed to the Court of Appeals and motion was made in the Court of Appeals to have the appeal heard on seven copies of the record before the Appellate Division.
The Court of Appeals, 5 N.Y.2d 1021, 185 N.Y.S.2d 545, granted motion to have appeal heard on seven copies of the record before the Appellate Division.
Wechsler & Solodar, New York City (Max Wechsler, and Albert L. Solodar, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Edward I, Byer, New York City, for defendant-respondent.
Order affirmed, without costs.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kover v. Kover
...892, 289 N.Y.S.2d 409, 236 N.E.2d 638; Trippe v. Trippe, 19 N.Y.2d 944, 281 N.Y.S.2d 350, 228 N.E.2d 404; Sacknoff v. Sacknoff, 7 N.Y.2d 771, 194 N.Y.S.2d 40, 163 N.E.2d 144; see, also, text of footnote 2, Supra, p. Kover v. Kover Married in 1959, plaintiff whife obtained a separation decre......
-
Hickland v. Hickland
...892, 289 N.Y.S.2d 409, 236 N.E.2d 638; Trippe v. Trippe, 19 N.Y.2d 944, 281 N.Y.S.2d 350, 228 N.E.2d 404; Sacknoff v. Sacknoff, 7 N.Y.2d 771, 194 N.Y.S.2d 40, 163 N.E.2d 144.) On the other hand, we find the modification by the Appellate Division, which, while leaving the wife in exclusive p......
-
Peters v. Peters
...affirmed 2 N.Y.2d 742, 157 N.Y.S.2d 378, 138 N.E.2d 738; Sacknoff v. Sacknoff, 6 A.D.2d 879, 177 N.Y.S.2d 756, affirmed 7 N.Y.2d 771, 194 N.Y.S.2d 40, 163 N.E.2d 144). Defendant may not be compelled to support the daughter, who is married and emancipated; nor may defendant be required to su......
-
Freimuth v. Freimuth
...646, affd. 2 N.Y.2d 742, 157 N.Y.S.2d 378, 138 N.E.2d 738; Sacknoff v. Sacknoff, 6 A.D.2d 879, 177 N.Y.S.2d 756, affd. 7 N.Y.2d 771, 194 N.Y.S.2d 40, 163 N.E.2d 144). This determination is made on the basis of the facts as they currently exist and is without prejudice to a subsequent motion......