Fiorentino v. Fiorentino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fiorentino v. Fiorentino

249 A.D. 561, 293 N.Y.S. 285, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9649

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 1937

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 249 A.D. 561 (Fiorentino v. Fiorentino) 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

Fiorentino v. Fiorentino, 249 A.D. 561, 293 N.Y.S. 285, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

An action for separation between the parties was pending in the Supreme Court when petitioner’s application for an increased allowance to provide for the support of the children was granted in the Domestic Relations Court. In such case the only basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by that court is a showing that the minor children, in whose behalf the application had been made, were likely to become public charges. (Matter of Costa v. Costa, 247 App. Div. 192; Dom. Rel. Ct. Act, § 137.) The undisputed testimony here is that the rent and all lighting bills of the apartment in which the children lived with the mother, were being paid by the father, and there was no claim that the latter was not making adequate provision for their food and clothing. As the record is barren of any proof that the children were likely to become public charges, the Family Court, while the separation suit was pending and undetermined, was clearly without power to make the order increasing the weekly allowance which had theretofore been made solely for the benefit of the petitioner.

The order should be reversed and the petition of respondent for an increased allowance should be dismissed.

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

Order unanimously reversed and the petition of the respondent for an increased allowance dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

An action for separation between the parties was pending in the Supreme Court when petitioner’s application for an increased allowance to provide for the support of the children was granted in the Domestic Relations Court. In such case the only basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by that court is a showing that the minor children, in whose behalf the application had been made, were likely to become public charges. (Matter of Costa v. Costa, 247 App. Div. 192; Dom. Rel. Ct. Act, § 137.) The undisputed testimony here is that the rent and all lighting bills of the apartment in which the children lived with the mother, were being paid by the father, and there was no claim that the latter was not making adequate provision for their food and clothing. As the record is barren of any proof that the children were likely to become public charges, the Family Court, while the separation suit was pending and undetermined, was clearly without power to make the order increasing the weekly allowance which had theretofore been made solely for the benefit of the petitioner.

The order should be reversed and the petition of respondent for an increased allowance should be dismissed.

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

Order unanimously reversed and the petition of the respondent for an increased allowance dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 561, 293 N.Y.S. 285, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fiorentino-v-fiorentino-nyappdiv-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack