David v. David

New York Supreme Court

David v. David

146 Misc. 444, 261 N.Y.S. 456, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1711

DecidedAugust 3, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 146 Misc. 444 (David v. David) 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

David v. David, 146 Misc. 444, 261 N.Y.S. 456, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1711 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Schmuck, J.

Motion denied. Conceding that the defendant has fallen on evil days and that his financial condition has become deplorable, we may not forget that, before the prevailing economic depression brought its cataclysm of distress, fortune had smiled upon him, and that, if he had been provident as normal individuals usually are, he would have provided for all possible exigencies, including the one from which he now seeks to escape. It is a husband’s duty to support and maintain his wife and children. This responsibility demands thought of the future as well as consideration of the present. While single, he may go adventuring without gainsay, but, when married, he must not, through heedlessness, endanger the welfare of those who legally may look to him for support. His application for a reduction of alimony will not be heeded, for the amount he now pays is reasonable. No patience or sympathy is had for those who seek to take advantage of present conditions in order to foil an obvious and indisputable duty.

Order signed.

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

Schmuck, J.

Motion denied. Conceding that the defendant has fallen on evil days and that his financial condition has become deplorable, we may not forget that, before the prevailing economic depression brought its cataclysm of distress, fortune had smiled upon him, and that, if he had been provident as normal individuals usually are, he would have provided for all possible exigencies, including the one from which he now seeks to escape. It is a husband’s duty to support and maintain his wife and children. This responsibility demands thought of the future as well as consideration of the present. While single, he may go adventuring without gainsay, but, when married, he must not, through heedlessness, endanger the welfare of those who legally may look to him for support. His application for a reduction of alimony will not be heeded, for the amount he now pays is reasonable. No patience or sympathy is had for those who seek to take advantage of present conditions in order to foil an obvious and indisputable duty.

Order signed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 Misc. 444, 261 N.Y.S. 456, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-v-david-nysupct-1932.