Brody v. Brody

New York Supreme Court

Brody v. Brody

98 Misc. 2d 560, 414 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1979 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2114

DecidedMarch 7, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 98 Misc. 2d 560 (Brody v. Brody) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brody v. Brody, 98 Misc. 2d 560, 414 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1979 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2114 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

John W. Sweeny, J.

This is an application by the petitioner for an order amending the provisions of a Santo Domingo divorce decree in order to provide an additional decretal paragraph authorizing petitioner to resume the use of her maiden name.

The provisions of section 240-a of the Domestic Relations Law provide for a mandatory decretal paragraph authorizing the former wife to resume the use of her maiden name if she desires "[i]n «any action or proceeding brought under the provisons of this chapter”. Therefore, it would appear that the Legislature only intended this provision to be placed in New York divorce decrees. And, considering the fact that there is no authority for this court to "add” decretal paragraphs to foreign divorce decrees, there does not seem to be any authority for this court to grant the present relief.

Although the court is aware of the very liberal intent set [561]*561forth in the Memorandum of Assemblyman Edward F. Crawford to chapter 642 of the Laws of 1973 (NY Legis Ann, 1973, p 34), the wording of the statute would seem to prohibit the present relief. It is for the Legislature to amend either article 6 of the Civil Rights Law or section 240-a of the Domestic Relations Law in order to permit the present relief.

Accordingly, the application must be denied.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

John W. Sweeny, J.

This is an application by the petitioner for an order amending the provisions of a Santo Domingo divorce decree in order to provide an additional decretal paragraph authorizing petitioner to resume the use of her maiden name.

The provisions of section 240-a of the Domestic Relations Law provide for a mandatory decretal paragraph authorizing the former wife to resume the use of her maiden name if she desires "[i]n «any action or proceeding brought under the provisons of this chapter”. Therefore, it would appear that the Legislature only intended this provision to be placed in New York divorce decrees. And, considering the fact that there is no authority for this court to "add” decretal paragraphs to foreign divorce decrees, there does not seem to be any authority for this court to grant the present relief.

Although the court is aware of the very liberal intent set [561]*561forth in the Memorandum of Assemblyman Edward F. Crawford to chapter 642 of the Laws of 1973 (NY Legis Ann, 1973, p 34), the wording of the statute would seem to prohibit the present relief. It is for the Legislature to amend either article 6 of the Civil Rights Law or section 240-a of the Domestic Relations Law in order to permit the present relief.

Accordingly, the application must be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 Misc. 2d 560, 414 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1979 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brody-v-brody-nysupct-1979.