In re Hoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Hoff

251 A.D. 862, 297 N.Y.S. 39, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7998

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

DecidedJune 25, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D. 862 (In re Hoff) 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

In re Hoff, 251 A.D. 862, 297 N.Y.S. 39, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7998 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding to compel support of wife and three children. Order of Domestic Relations Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, dated August 5, 1936, and order dated September 25, 1936, reversed on the law and the motions denied without prejudice to proceedings in a court or courts having jurisdiction. After the court had vacated an order previously made, it was without power to reinstate the order as valid when it appeared that the order sought to be reinstated was void for lack of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of subject-matter may not be conferred upon a court of limited jurisdiction by consent. The parties should be relegated to the proper court, where the defendant may be required to support these children under a valid order. If he is under a legal duty to support their mother, he may only be required to do so in a proceeding in a court having jurisdiction. Appeals from orders dated March 17, 1936, and February 18, 1935, dismissed. (Domestic Relations Court Act, § 58.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell and Johnston, JJ., concur; Hagarty and Davis, JJ., dissent as to reversal of the orders dated August 5, 1936, and September 25, 1936, as to which they vote to affirm. They concur in the dismissal of appeals from orders dated March 17, 1936, and February 18, 1935.

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

Proceeding to compel support of wife and three children. Order of Domestic Relations Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, dated August 5, 1936, and order dated September 25, 1936, reversed on the law and the motions denied without prejudice to proceedings in a court or courts having jurisdiction. After the court had vacated an order previously made, it was without power to reinstate the order as valid when it appeared that the order sought to be reinstated was void for lack of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of subject-matter may not be conferred upon a court of limited jurisdiction by consent. The parties should be relegated to the proper court, where the defendant may be required to support these children under a valid order. If he is under a legal duty to support their mother, he may only be required to do so in a proceeding in a court having jurisdiction. Appeals from orders dated March 17, 1936, and February 18, 1935, dismissed. (Domestic Relations Court Act, § 58.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell and Johnston, JJ., concur; Hagarty and Davis, JJ., dissent as to reversal of the orders dated August 5, 1936, and September 25, 1936, as to which they vote to affirm. They concur in the dismissal of appeals from orders dated March 17, 1936, and February 18, 1935.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D. 862, 297 N.Y.S. 39, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hoff-nyappdiv-1937.