Altschuler v. Altschuler

248 A.D. 768
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 15, 1936
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 248 A.D. 768 (Altschuler v. Altschuler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Altschuler v. Altschuler, 248 A.D. 768 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Opinion

In a,n action for separation in which the defendant wife counterclaimed for and was awarded an absolute divorce with custody of the two children of the parties, the plaintiff being accorded the right of visitation, order in so far as it denies plaintiff’s motion to amend the final decree of divorce by eliminating therefrom the provision requiring plaintiff to pay to the defendant the sum of fifteen dollars a week for the support and education of each of the children (nunc pro tunc as of October 1, 1934), affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. The defendant wife remarried subsequent to the decree and with her then husband and the children removed to California, where said husband had obtained employment. These circumstances, in our opinion, furnish no reason for the relief of the plaintiff from the obligation to support his children as directed by the decree, the welfare of such children being the paramount consideration. (See Kane v. Kane, 241 Mich. 96; 216 N. W. 437; Hart v. Hart, 266 Mich. 564; 254 N. W. 207; Epstein v. Epstein, 234 Mich. 200; 207 N. W. 894.) This case involves a judicial decree and for that reason is distinguishable from those in which contracts of separation were presented, in which latter cases the recovery of amounts payable to the wife by the husband for support of the children has been denied. (Muth v. Wuest, 76 App. Div. 332; Duryea v. Bliven, 122 N. Y. 567.) The case of Harris v. Harris (197 App. Div. 646), properly read and considered in the light of its own peculiar facts, is not at variance with our ruling. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Shinouda v. Shinouda
96 Misc. 2d 290 (New York Family Court, 1978)
Doe v. Doe
86 Misc. 194 (NYC Family Court, 1975)
Audrey D. v. Michael O.
77 Misc. 2d 230 (NYC Family Court, 1974)
Abreu v. Abreu
46 Misc. 2d 942 (NYC Family Court, 1965)
County of Santa Clara, State of California v. Hughes
43 Misc. 2d 559 (NYC Family Court, 1964)
Greene v. Greene
31 Misc. 2d 1009 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
Vastola v. Vastola
23 Misc. 2d 39 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
Goodman v. Goodman
17 Misc. 2d 712 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Magrill v. Magrill
16 Misc. 2d 896 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959)
Webster v. Webster
14 Misc. 2d 64 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
Meiners v. Chinigo
283 A.D. 1096 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1954)
White v. White
205 Misc. 1042 (New York Supreme Court, 1954)
Tamny v. Tamny
205 Misc. 439 (New York Supreme Court, 1954)
Mackay v. Mackay
205 Misc. 470 (New York Supreme Court, 1952)
Moses v. Moses
193 Misc. 890 (New York Family Court, 1948)
Fox v. Fox
273 A.D. 895 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1948)
"Lola Almandares" v. "Diego Almandares"
186 Misc. 667 (New York Family Court, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
248 A.D. 768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/altschuler-v-altschuler-nyappdiv-1936.