Kaiser v. Kaiser

New York Supreme Court

Kaiser v. Kaiser

12 Misc. 2d 369, 177 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3499

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedApril 16, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 12 Misc. 2d 369 (Kaiser v. Kaiser) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kaiser v. Kaiser, 12 Misc. 2d 369, 177 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3499 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Matthew M. Levy, J.

In this action for a separation, plaintiff wife alleges in her complaint (among other things upon which a cause of action therefor might be based) that a separation agreement was entered into between the parties and that she has abided by the agreement, but that defendant husband has not met the weekly payments therein specified. She demands a judgment of separation and that defendant be compelled to provide for her and the children of the parties “ according to the terms and covenants of the separation agreement hereto annexed ”. Plaintiff now seeks relief pendente lite, usually applied for in a separation suit.

The point was not made by defendant (the answer has not been submitted and perhaps not yet interposed) but I must hold that, since there is a subsisting separation agreement, valid on its face and not rescinded by the wife, it stands as a bar to the separation action. Until the agreement is set aside or revoked by plaintiff because of defendant’s breach, plaintiff is precluded from obtaining temporary relief in the action (see Galusha v. Galusha, 116 N. Y. 635; Galusha v. Galusha, 138 N. Y. 272, 283; Goldman v. Goldman, 282 N. Y. 296, 300-302; Borax v. Borax, 3 A D 2d 404, affd. 4 N Y 2d 113; cf. Yunis v. Yunis, 286 App. Div. 1126).

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

Matthew M. Levy, J.

In this action for a separation, plaintiff wife alleges in her complaint (among other things upon which a cause of action therefor might be based) that a separation agreement was entered into between the parties and that she has abided by the agreement, but that defendant husband has not met the weekly payments therein specified. She demands a judgment of separation and that defendant be compelled to provide for her and the children of the parties “ according to the terms and covenants of the separation agreement hereto annexed ”. Plaintiff now seeks relief pendente lite, usually applied for in a separation suit.

The point was not made by defendant (the answer has not been submitted and perhaps not yet interposed) but I must hold that, since there is a subsisting separation agreement, valid on its face and not rescinded by the wife, it stands as a bar to the separation action. Until the agreement is set aside or revoked by plaintiff because of defendant’s breach, plaintiff is precluded from obtaining temporary relief in the action (see Galusha v. Galusha, 116 N. Y. 635; Galusha v. Galusha, 138 N. Y. 272, 283; Goldman v. Goldman, 282 N. Y. 296, 300-302; Borax v. Borax, 3 A D 2d 404, affd. 4 N Y 2d 113; cf. Yunis v. Yunis, 286 App. Div. 1126).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Misc. 2d 369, 177 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaiser-v-kaiser-nysupct-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack