Goldman v. Goldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldman v. Goldman

30 A.D.2d 689, 291 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3734

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

DecidedJune 17, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 689 (Goldman v. Goldman) 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

Goldman v. Goldman, 30 A.D.2d 689, 291 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3734 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 23, 1966, modified, on the law and the facts, by striking therefrom the decretal paragraph which dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and by substituting therefor a provision dismissing the first cause of action and granting plaintiff a separation under the second cause of action. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. The defendant husband admitted at the trial that he had failed to support the plaintiff wife and their two children for 12 weeks. Consequently, plaintiff should have been granted a separation on the ground of nonsupport despite the parties’ prior consensual separation (cf. Matter of Steinberg v. Steinberg, 18 N Y 2d 492, 498). Under the circumstances disclosed, the unallocated award of $50 a week for the support of plaintiff and the two children is not in our opinion inadequate. Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 23, 1966, modified, on the law and the facts, by striking therefrom the decretal paragraph which dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and by substituting therefor a provision dismissing the first cause of action and granting plaintiff a separation under the second cause of action. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. The defendant husband admitted at the trial that he had failed to support the plaintiff wife and their two children for 12 weeks. Consequently, plaintiff should have been granted a separation on the ground of nonsupport despite the parties’ prior consensual separation (cf. Matter of Steinberg v. Steinberg, 18 N Y 2d 492, 498). Under the circumstances disclosed, the unallocated award of $50 a week for the support of plaintiff and the two children is not in our opinion inadequate. Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 689, 291 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldman-v-goldman-nyappdiv-1968.