Doctors Hospital v. Curtis

135 Misc. 2d 71, 514 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1987 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2180
CourtCivil Court of the City of New York
DecidedApril 6, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 135 Misc. 2d 71 (Doctors Hospital v. Curtis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Civil Court of the City of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Doctors Hospital v. Curtis, 135 Misc. 2d 71, 514 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1987 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2180 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1987).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Alexander Graves, J.

In this motion for summary judgment against defendant Amanda Curtis for hospital services rendered to her husband, defendant Alfred Curtis, plaintiff rests its legal case exclusively on Domestic Relations Law § 32, which, it is alleged, provides that a wife is liable for the support of her husband. The provisions of said section 32, insofar as here applicable, are as follows:

"For the purpose of this article, the following persons * * * are declared to be liable for the support of dependents * * * and, if possessed of sufficient means or able to earn such [72]*72means, may be required to pay for such support a fair and reasonable sum, as may be determined by the court having jurisdiction of the respondent in a proceeding instituted under this article * * *

"2. Wife liable for support of her husband”.

Domestic Relations Law § 31 defines "court” as meaning the Family Court of the State of New York and including certain other courts in other States.

While it may be true as a general principle that a wife is liable for the support of her husband, it is clear that the obligation is a limited one and may be enforced in a proceeding brought by the husband in Family Court under the Uniform Support of Dependents Law. Plaintiff has attempted, by lifting a few words from the statute without regard to its other provisions, to make the wife automatically obligated for the husband’s hospital bill on no basis other than that she is his wife. Such an attempt must fail.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is denied and, under the authority of CPLR 3212 (b), defendant Amanda Curtis shall have summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.

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

Related

Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital v. Perrotta
143 Misc. 2d 452 (Utica City Court, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
135 Misc. 2d 71, 514 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1987 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doctors-hospital-v-curtis-nycivct-1987.