Drusine v. Drusine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Drusine v. Drusine

18 A.D.2d 1061, 239 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3915

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 18, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 1061 (Drusine v. Drusine) 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

Drusine v. Drusine, 18 A.D.2d 1061, 239 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered February 7, 1962 unanimously modified on the law and the facts, without costs, to delete the sixth decretal paragraph providing for the payment by defendant to plaintiff of the sum of $125 weekly alimony, and, in lieu thereof, to provide that the defendant shall pay to plaintiff the sum of $45 weekly for her support and maintenance, the sum of $20 weekly for general support and maintenance of infant daughter, and $50 weekly, 52 weeks a year, to be applied toward college or university expense and maintenance of said daughter during the period that she is enrolled as a student and pursuing a course of instruction in a college or university, and said order otherwise unanimously affirmed, without costs. It clearly appears that the earning and financial ability of the defendant is such that he should be required to pay sums reasonably required for the support and maintenance of his wife and daughter but the allowances should have been fixed with due regard to the standard of living to which the wife and daughter were accustomed and with due regard to the wife’s independent earnings and financial resources. (Phillips v. Phillips, 1 A D 2d 393; Hearst v. Hearst, 3 A D 2d 706.) Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order entered February 7, 1962 unanimously modified on the law and the facts, without costs, to delete the sixth decretal paragraph providing for the payment by defendant to plaintiff of the sum of $125 weekly alimony, and, in lieu thereof, to provide that the defendant shall pay to plaintiff the sum of $45 weekly for her support and maintenance, the sum of $20 weekly for general support and maintenance of infant daughter, and $50 weekly, 52 weeks a year, to be applied toward college or university expense and maintenance of said daughter during the period that she is enrolled as a student and pursuing a course of instruction in a college or university, and said order otherwise unanimously affirmed, without costs. It clearly appears that the earning and financial ability of the defendant is such that he should be required to pay sums reasonably required for the support and maintenance of his wife and daughter but the allowances should have been fixed with due regard to the standard of living to which the wife and daughter were accustomed and with due regard to the wife’s independent earnings and financial resources. (Phillips v. Phillips, 1 A D 2d 393; Hearst v. Hearst, 3 A D 2d 706.) Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 1061, 239 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drusine-v-drusine-nyappdiv-1963.