Dworkin v. Dworkin

247 A.D. 213, 286 N.Y.S. 982, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8226
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 3, 1936
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 247 A.D. 213 (Dworkin v. Dworkin) 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
Dworkin v. Dworkin, 247 A.D. 213, 286 N.Y.S. 982, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8226 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The separation agreement entered into between plaintiff and defendant prior to the entry of the interlocutory judgment in the action for absolute divorce is void upon its face. Under its provisions, plaintiff contracted to relieve the defendant of his liability to support her without any valid consideration for the promise. Such an agreement is against the settled policy of this State (Kershner v. Kershner, 244 App. Div. 34, 36; affd., 270 N. Y. 642; Kunker v. Kunker, 230 App. Div. 641, 643), is expressly prohibited by statute (Dom. Rel. Law, § 51) and may be disregarded. (Mabbett v. Mabbett, 197 App. Div. 654; Gewirtz v. Gewirtz, 189 id. 483, 486.)

The general release delivered by plaintiff, to defendant at the time when the separation agreement was made, operated as a release only of claims which originated at or before the date the general release was executed, and did not apply to claims for support maturing thereafter. (Farnham v. Farnham, 204 App. Div. 573; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 170 id. 452.)

[215]*215In the circumstances there was no need for the plaintiff to bring an action to set aside or modify the separation agreement, which so far as it absolutely relieved the husband from all obligations to support his wife, was a nudum pactum, and did not bar plaintiff’s right to support. The court at Special Term should have granted the application to amend the final judgment of divorce by inserting therein a direction for support of the plaintiff. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1170.) The amount provided may be determined after a hearing before a referee who is to inquire into the financial circumstances of the defendant. An allowance to the plaintiff for her attorney’s fees for services rendered and to be rendered subsequent to the time of her application therefor may be fixed upon the coming in of the report of the referee.

The order should be reversed and the plaintiff should be awarded alimony and counsel fee upon the coming in of the report of the official referee, without costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., McAvoy, O’Malley, Dore and Cohn, JJ.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and a reference ordered to an official referee to report upon the amount of alimony and counsel fee. Settle order on notice.

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

Related

In re the Estate of Wilson
66 A.D.2d 893 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Krochalis v. Krochalis
53 A.D.2d 1010 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
La Porte v. La Porte
85 Misc. 2d 1009 (New York Supreme Court, 1976)
Ferro v. Bologna
286 N.E.2d 244 (New York Court of Appeals, 1972)
Stahl v. Stahl
16 A.D.2d 467 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1962)
Mullane v. Mullane
29 Misc. 2d 194 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
Wilkinson v. Wilkinson
10 A.D.2d 937 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
Bold v. Bold
18 Misc. 2d 709 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Van Dyke v. Van Dyke
278 A.D. 446 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1951)
In re the Second Intermediate Accounting of Slocum
274 A.D. 871 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1948)
Schiff v. Schiff
270 A.D. 845 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1946)
Leeds v. Leeds
265 A.D. 189 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1942)
Altman v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.
124 F.2d 177 (Second Circuit, 1941)
Stone v. Stone
173 Misc. 774 (New York Supreme Court, 1940)
Card v. Card
171 Misc. 217 (New York Supreme Court, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
247 A.D. 213, 286 N.Y.S. 982, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dworkin-v-dworkin-nyappdiv-1936.