Friedman v. Kallayee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Friedman v. Kallayee

89 A.D.2d 555, 452 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17607

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A.D.2d 555 (Friedman v. Kallayee) 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

Friedman v. Kallayee, 89 A.D.2d 555, 452 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover for necessaries expended on behalf of the parties’ child, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), entered November 19, 1981, which granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a cause of action and denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss certain affirmative defenses. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint is denied and plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the affirmative defenses of failure to state a cause of action and lack of jurisdiction is granted. Plaintiff’s action to recover for necessaries furnished by her on behalf of the parties’ child states a cause of action notwithstanding the absence of a child support provision in the parties’ divorce decree (see Laumeier v Laumeier, 237 NY 357; Home v Horne, 22 NY2d 219; Nelson v Nelson, 72 AD2d 693; see, also, Family Ct Act, § 461; Father’s Liability for Support of Child, Ann., 91 ALR3d 530, and cases cited therein). Jurisdiction was properly obtained by personal service of the defendant within the State (see Drazin v Drazin, 31 AD2d 531). O’Connor, J. P., Thompson, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover for necessaries expended on behalf of the parties’ child, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), entered November 19, 1981, which granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a cause of action and denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss certain affirmative defenses. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint is denied and plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the affirmative defenses of failure to state a cause of action and lack of jurisdiction is granted. Plaintiff’s action to recover for necessaries furnished by her on behalf of the parties’ child states a cause of action notwithstanding the absence of a child support provision in the parties’ divorce decree (see Laumeier v Laumeier, 237 NY 357; Home v Horne, 22 NY2d 219; Nelson v Nelson, 72 AD2d 693; see, also, Family Ct Act, § 461; Father’s Liability for Support of Child, Ann., 91 ALR3d 530, and cases cited therein). Jurisdiction was properly obtained by personal service of the defendant within the State (see Drazin v Drazin, 31 AD2d 531). O’Connor, J. P., Thompson, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.2d 555, 452 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-kallayee-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack