Soltow v. Soltow
| Decision Date | 10 February 1975 |
| Citation | 364 N.Y.S.2d 28,47 A.D.2d 652 |
| Parties | Elizabeth I. SOLTOW, Appellant, v. Walter SOLTOW, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Stanley Polansky, North Babylon, for appellant.
Carman, Callahan & Carman, Farmingdale (Willis B. Carman, Jr., Farmingdale, of counsel), for respondent.
Before GULOTTA, P.J., and HOPKINS, COHALAN, CHRIST and MUNDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover upon a separation agreement, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered April 19, 1974, in favor of defendant, after a nonjury trial.
Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and new trial granted, wih costs to abide the event.
The parties were married in 1951 and have two sons. In July, 1968 they entered into the separation agreement and on September 5, 1968 the marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce. The separation agreement, which was incorporated into the divorce decree, provided that defendant would pay plaintiff $90 per week for the support of the children, representing $45 per week for each child, 'until each child shall become 21 years of age, self-supporting or married, whichever shall first occur' and 'to continue * * * for each child attending an accredited four year undergraduate college * * * to graduation, provided that he continues as a student in good standing.' The support provisions were subject to an increase of $10 per week per child 'should the husband's net income increase by * * * $3,000 * * * per year'. The agreement also required defendant to pay all the reasonable medical and dental expenses incurred by the children and maintain existing health and life insurance policies.
We believe that the trial court should have granted plaintiff's motion, made at the outset of the trial, to amend the complaint so as to permit an increase in the Ad damnum clause, based upon an alleged increase in defendant's income, which under the separation agreement would have required an increase in the children's support payments. Moreover, the court should have allowed plaintiff to conform the pleadings to the proof so as to permit evidence relating to support payments which accrued prior to 1971. Pleadings should be liberally construed and defects are to be ignored if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced (CPLR 3026). A pleading may be amended by adding additional items 'at any time by leave of court' and such leave 'shall be freely given upon such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ligreci v. Ligreci
...733; Matter of Gleason v. Gleason, 247 A.D.2d 384, 668 N.Y.S.2d 657; Lefkow v. Lefkow, 188 A.D.2d 589, 591 N.Y.S.2d 488; Soltow v. Soltow, 47 A.D.2d 652, 364 N.Y.S.2d 28). The plaintiff had no right to have the sum of payments he made voluntarily deducted from the sums he was obligated to p......
-
Wooten v. Wooten
...amounts due and owing under the decree. Horne v. Horne, 22 N.Y.2d 219, 239 N.E.2d 348, 292 N.Y.S.2d 411 (1968); Soltow v. Soltow, 47 A.D.2d 652, 364 N.Y.S.2d 28 (App.Div.1975). Since the payments in this case were gratuitous, the law was properly 414 So.2d at 1156. I believe, since the husb......
-
Brown v. Dyer
...Hammond v. Hammond, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 357, 131 F.2d 351 (1942), cert. denied, 318 U.S. 770, 63 S.Ct. 763, 87 L.Ed. 1141 (1943); Soltow v. Soltow, 47 A.D.2d 652, 364 N.Y. S.2d 28 (1975); Ex parte Holloway, 490 S.W.2d 624 (Tex.Civ.App. 1973). In Glover v. Glover, 268 Ark. 506, 598 S.W.2d 736 (1......
-
Bloom v. Bloom
...amounts due and owing under the decree. Horne v. Horne, 22 N.Y.2d 219, 239 N.E.2d 348, 292 N.Y.S.2d 411 (1968); Soltow v. Soltow, 47 A.D.2d 652, 364 N.Y.S.2d 28 (App.Div.1975). Since the payments in this case were gratuitous, the law was properly Fourth, the amount found by the master to be......