In re Payea

Civil Court of the City of New York

In re Payea

53 Misc. 2d 172, 278 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1967 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1719

CourtCivil Court of the City of New York

DecidedMarch 6, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 53 Misc. 2d 172 (In re Payea) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Civil Court of the City 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 Payea, 53 Misc. 2d 172, 278 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1967 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1719 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Maurice Wahl, J.

The application herein is for the withdrawal of $183. A sum in excess of $3,800 was deposited for the benefit of the child pursuant to a settlement on March 3, 1959. The reason stated for the withdrawal is that the parents cannot afford to purchase clothing for the child. The father is employed as a truck driver and his “ take home pay ” is $170 a week, or $8,840 per year.

The obligation to support children rests on the parents. This is not a novel assertion, and the court finds it hard to understand how parents with an income of $8,840 per year cannot afford to purchase clothing for their child. See my decision in the matter of Caban v. Lonkey (53 Misc 2d 171).

This court also finds it necessary to comment on the performance of the legal profession in this and similar matters. The court is disgusted at the failure of the profession to apprise the parents of what rightfully belongs to the infant and of their duties as parents. Accordingly, the application is denied.

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

Maurice Wahl, J.

The application herein is for the withdrawal of $183. A sum in excess of $3,800 was deposited for the benefit of the child pursuant to a settlement on March 3, 1959. The reason stated for the withdrawal is that the parents cannot afford to purchase clothing for the child. The father is employed as a truck driver and his “ take home pay ” is $170 a week, or $8,840 per year.

The obligation to support children rests on the parents. This is not a novel assertion, and the court finds it hard to understand how parents with an income of $8,840 per year cannot afford to purchase clothing for their child. See my decision in the matter of Caban v. Lonkey (53 Misc 2d 171).

This court also finds it necessary to comment on the performance of the legal profession in this and similar matters. The court is disgusted at the failure of the profession to apprise the parents of what rightfully belongs to the infant and of their duties as parents. Accordingly, the application is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 Misc. 2d 172, 278 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1967 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-payea-nycivct-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack