Fairchild Sons, Inc. v. Diskin

196 Misc. 495, 94 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1949 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3064
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided October 6, 1949·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Under the circumstances here disclosed, in the absence of an express contract to pay his father’s funeral expenses, defendant Diskin could not be, held liable therefor. There was no legal obligation upon him to pay such expenses by reason of the filial relationship. The provisions of statutes [496] which impose liability on children for the support of indigent parents may be enforced only at the instance of the public authorities (Rutecki v. Lukaszewski, 273 App. Div. 638; Bellucci v. Dalessio, N. Y. L. J., Feb. 8, 1936, p. 727, col. 2). Additionally it appears that others pledged their credit for the payment of the funeral expenses.

The judgment should be unanimously reversed on the law and facts, with $30 costs to appellant, and complaint dismissed, with appropriate costs in the court below.

Steinbrink, Fennelly and Rubenstein, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Fairchild Sons, Inc. v. Diskin, 196 Misc. 495, 94 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1949 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3064 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

196 Misc. 495 (Fairchild Sons, Inc. v. Diskin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schoenfeld v. Ochsenhaut
114 Misc. 2d 585 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1982)
Moloney Funeral Home, Inc. v. Gurnell
45 Misc. 2d 678 (New York Supreme Court, 1965)
Fairchild Sons, Inc. v. Diskin
276 A.D.2d 847 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1949)