Wertheimer v. Wertheimer
| Citation | 376 N.Y.S.2d 638,50 A.D.2d 879 |
| Parties | Valerie WERTHEIMER, Respondent, v. Edward WERTHEIMER, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 22 December 1975 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Taylor, Atkins & Ostrow, Garden City (Michael J. Ostrow, Garden City, of counsel), for appellant.
Ira Richard Bennett, New York City, for respondent.
Before RABIN, Acting P.J., and HOPKINS, MARTUSCELLO, BRENNAN and MUNDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding Inter alia to modify the alimony and child support provisions of a foreign divorce decree, the appeals are from three orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County: (1) an order dated May 1, 1975 which (a) granted the petitioner wife's motion to examine appellant before trial as to his finances and (b) denied the appellant husband's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing so much of the petition as sought an increase in alimony; (2) an order dated June 11, 1975 which denied appellant's motion for reargument (deemed by this court as one to rehear insofar as it sought to review that part of the order dated May 1, 1975 which required appellant to submit to an examination before trial); and (3) an order dated June 23, 1975 which set the dates for the pretrial examination and the hearing.
Order dated May 1, 1975 modified, on the law, by deleting the provision which denied appellant's motion and by substituting therefor a provision that the motion is granted. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs.
Appeal from so much of the order dated June 11, 1975 as denied reargument of appellant's motion for partial summary judgment dismissed. No appeal lies from an order denying reargument (Roberts v. Connelly, 35 A.D.2d 813, 316 N.Y.S.2d 675). Order otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Order dated June 23, 1975 affirmed, without costs.
The examination before trial of appellant shall proceed at a time and place to be fixed in a written notice of not less than 10 days, to be given by respondent, or at such time and place as the parties may agree.
Subdivision (c) of section 466 of the Family Court Act empowers the Family Court to entertain applications to enforce and modify alimony and support provisions of foreign decrees irrespective of the grounds upon which the decrees were granted. This is a new class of proceeding and one in which the Supreme Court is deemed to have concurrent jurisdiction by virtue of section 7 of article VI of the New York State Constitution (Matter of Seitz v. Drogheo, 21 N.Y.2d 181, 287...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pearson v. Pearson
...Silver, 36 N.Y.2d 324, 367 N.Y.S.2d 777, 327 N.E.2d 816; Beaverson v. Beaverson, 72 A.D.2d 963, 422 N.Y.S.2d 259; Wertheimer v. Wertheimer, 50 A.D.2d 879, 376 N.Y.S.2d 638). Since the Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, it cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by st......
-
Villano v. Villano
...N.Y.2d 899, 352 N.Y.S.2d 626, 307 N.E.2d 823. Silver v. Silver, 36 N.Y.2d 324, 367 N.Y.S.2d 777, 327 N.E.2d 816 and Wertheimer v. Wertheimer, 50 A.D.2d 879, 376 N.Y.S.2d 638, do not hold to the contrary. They limit the authority to enforce or amend to cases where there is a currently effect......
-
Gonos v. Hadzipetros, 2014-04409, Index No. 202484/13.
...324 ; Langdon v. Mohr, 99 A.D.2d 957, 472 N.Y.S.2d 650, affd. 64 N.Y.2d 819, 486 N.Y.S.2d 938, 476 N.E.2d 337 ; Wertheimer v. Wertheimer, 50 A.D.2d 879, 376 N.Y.S.2d 638 ; Beaverson v. Beaverson, 72 A.D.2d 963, 422 N.Y.S.2d 259 ).Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the former hu......
-
Sondra S. v. Matthew G.
...effective provision for support. Silver v. Silver, 36 N.Y.2d 324, 367 N.Y.S.2d 777, 327 N.E.2d 816 (1975); Wertheimer v. Wertheimer, 50 A.D.2d 879, 376 N.Y.S.2d 638 (2nd Dept. 1975). Failing this, the matter must be dismissed with leave to the parties to seek their remedies in the Supreme C......