Taft v. Taft
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Writing for the Court | Before THOMPSON |
| Citation | 548 N.Y.S.2d 726,156 A.D.2d 444 |
| Parties | Jane H. TAFT, Respondent, v. Robert L. TAFT, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 11 December 1989 |
Page 726
v.
Robert L. TAFT, Appellant.
Second Department.
Hinckley & Silbert, P.C., New York City (Raymond S. Hack, of counsel), for appellant.
Robert D. Arenstein, New York City, for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and EIBER, SULLIVAN and HARWOOD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action, inter alia, for a divorce and to recover arrears for support and maintenance allegedly due under a separation agreement, the defendant husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), entered August 10, 1988, as granted that branch of the plaintiff wife's motion which was to enjoin him from disposing of or removing from the jurisdiction any assets, and which denied his cross motion to dismiss the third and fourth causes of action.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
This action arises out of a separation agreement which [156 A.D.2d 445] contained, inter alia, a provision that the parties "shall proceed" with a divorce on the ground of abandonment and specified that the defendant would pay certain court costs. The defendant allegedly refused to make the payments as required by the agreement. The plaintiff commenced the instant action and moved, inter alia, to compel the defendant to comply with the separation agreement and to enjoin the defendant from disposing of any assets. The defendant cross-moved to dismiss both the third cause of action,
Page 727
which sought a conversion divorce based upon the agreement, and the fourth cause of action, which sought to enforce the support and maintenance provisions of the agreement. The Supreme Court declined to direct the defendant to comply with the agreement, because, in its opinion, such relief is only available in a plenary action. However, the court enjoined the defendant from disposing of and removing from the jurisdiction any assets and denied the cross motion to dismiss the third and fourth causes of action.The defendant argues that the causes of action based upon the separation agreement should have been dismissed because it contained an express provision requiring that the parties obtain a divorce, which provision cannot be severed from the remainder of the agreement. We disagree.
General Obligations Law § 5-311 provides that a husband and wife cannot contract to alter or dissolve a marriage, but that an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lanza v. Carbone, 2013-10557
...agreement which may be unenforceable (see Christian v. Christian, 42 N.Y.2d at 73, 396 N.Y.S.2d 817, 365 N.E.2d 849 ; Taft v. Taft, 156 A.D.2d 444, 446, 548 N.Y.S.2d 726 ; Schiff v. Schiff, 270 App.Div. 845, 846, 60 N.Y.S.2d 318 ; Filstein v. Bromberg, 36 Misc.3d 404, 415, 944 N.Y.S.2d 692 ......
-
Filstein v. Bromberg
...P.B., 19 Misc.3d at 192, 855 N.Y.S.2d 836 (citing Jessup v. LaBonte, 289 A.D.2d 295, 734 N.Y.S.2d 219 [2d Dept. 2001],Taft v. Taft, 156 A.D.2d 444, 548 N.Y.S.2d 726 [2d Dept. 1989], Seligman v. Seligman, 78 Misc.2d 632, 356 N.Y.S.2d 978 [Sup. Ct., Kings County 1974],Hummel v. Hummel, 62 Mis......
-
Bodden v. Penn-Attransco Corp., 2004 NY Slip Op 50021(U) (NY 1/12/2004), 25849/1995.
...excuse for a party's default in some cases, see e.g., Anderson v. Doten, 187 A.D.2d 893, 894 (3rd Dept. 1992); Chery v. Anthony, 156 A.D.2d 444 (2nd Dept. 1989), this Court does not find it a persuasive reason for counsel's four-year delay in making a motion to restore the action. Not only ......
-
Young v. Young
...the other provisions of the stipulation of settlement remain valid and enforceable pursuant to Article XVIII (see e.g. Taft v. Taft, 156 A.D.2d 444, 548 N.Y.S.2d 726 ; see also 142 A.D.3d 614 Christian v. Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63, 396 N.Y.S.2d 817, 365 N.E.2d 849 ; Lanza v. Carbone, 130 A.D.......
-
Lanza v. Carbone, 2013-10557
...agreement which may be unenforceable (see Christian v. Christian, 42 N.Y.2d at 73, 396 N.Y.S.2d 817, 365 N.E.2d 849 ; Taft v. Taft, 156 A.D.2d 444, 446, 548 N.Y.S.2d 726 ; Schiff v. Schiff, 270 App.Div. 845, 846, 60 N.Y.S.2d 318 ; Filstein v. Bromberg, 36 Misc.3d 404, 415, 944 N.Y.S.2d 692 ......
-
Filstein v. Bromberg
...P.B., 19 Misc.3d at 192, 855 N.Y.S.2d 836 (citing Jessup v. LaBonte, 289 A.D.2d 295, 734 N.Y.S.2d 219 [2d Dept. 2001],Taft v. Taft, 156 A.D.2d 444, 548 N.Y.S.2d 726 [2d Dept. 1989], Seligman v. Seligman, 78 Misc.2d 632, 356 N.Y.S.2d 978 [Sup. Ct., Kings County 1974],Hummel v. Hummel, 62 Mis......
-
Bodden v. Penn-Attransco Corp., 2004 NY Slip Op 50021(U) (NY 1/12/2004), 25849/1995.
...excuse for a party's default in some cases, see e.g., Anderson v. Doten, 187 A.D.2d 893, 894 (3rd Dept. 1992); Chery v. Anthony, 156 A.D.2d 444 (2nd Dept. 1989), this Court does not find it a persuasive reason for counsel's four-year delay in making a motion to restore the action. Not only ......
-
Young v. Young
...the other provisions of the stipulation of settlement remain valid and enforceable pursuant to Article XVIII (see e.g. Taft v. Taft, 156 A.D.2d 444, 548 N.Y.S.2d 726 ; see also 142 A.D.3d 614 Christian v. Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63, 396 N.Y.S.2d 817, 365 N.E.2d 849 ; Lanza v. Carbone, 130 A.D.......