Trippe v. Trippe
| Decision Date | 25 May 1967 |
| Citation | 281 N.Y.S.2d 350,19 N.Y.2d 944,228 N.E.2d 404 |
| Parties | , 228 N.E.2d 404 Jane B. TRIPPE, Respondent-Appellant, v. John T. TRIPPE, Appellant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 26 A.D.2d 916, 275 N.Y.S.2d 364.
Action for separation in which the Supreme Court entered in New York County upon a decision of the court on trial at a Special and Trial Term, Joseph A. Brust, J., a judgment granting separation, custody of parties' child to plaintiff, awarding plaintiff $7,000 a year for her support and maintenance, $3,000 a year for support, maintenance and education of child, and $3,000 for legal services and disbursements, and the plaintiff appealed.
The marriage was of a short duration so that parties had not established a joint standard of living and because of problems presented by condition of defendant's health there did not appear to be any reasonable likelihood that defendant would become gainfully employed in the future so that his principal income consisted of income from trust established by his wealthy parents. Although the defendant, if he survived, would receive outright one half of principal trust in less than three years, that sum was prospective only.
The Appellate Division entered order modifying order of Special and Trial Term by increasing sum payable for support and maintenance of plaintiff and child to respectively $11,000 and $4,000 annually and by increasing award for counsel fees and disbursements to $4,000, and cross appeals were taken.
Upon appeal by plaintiff order affirmed without costs.
Upon the appeal by defendant, order modified in the following memorandum and as so modified, affirmed, without costs. The increases made by Appellate Division in the amounts directed to be paid to plaintiff for alimony and child support were manifestly made by reason of financial resources of defendant's parents rather than his own. Defendant is admittedly ill and has no earning capacity in the foreseeable future. These increases by the Appellate Division were erroneous as a matter of law. The order appealed from should be modified by reinstating the alimony and child support directed to be paid by Special Term, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kover v. Kover
...question of law arises. (See Orenstein v. Orenstein, 21 N.Y.2d 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. Kov......
-
Hessen v. Hessen
...n. 2, 417, 328 N.Y.S.2d 641, 644, 646, 278 N.E.2d 886, 888, 890). Nor was it predicated on an error of law (see Trippe v. Trippe, 19 N.Y.2d 944, 281 N.Y.S.2d 350, 228 N.E.2d 404). This court will not therefore review its propriety. moreover, to the extent the wife purports to appeal from th......
-
Rann v. Rann
...1012 (1st Dept., 1960), mot. for rearg. lv. or app. den. 10 A.D.2d 937, 201 N.Y.S.2d 961.4 Compare Trippe v. Trippe, 19 N.Y.2d 944, 945, 281 N.Y.S.2d 350, 351, 228 N.E.2d 404, 405 (1967), where the Court held that the resources of the father's parents had been improperly taken into account ......
-
Hickland v. Hickland
...so, we believe it should be modified. (Orenstein v. Orenstein, 21 N.Y.2d 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 modificatio......