Leeds v. Leeds

284 A.D. 869, 134 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3852
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 5, 1954
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 284 A.D. 869 (Leeds v. Leeds) 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
Leeds v. Leeds, 284 A.D. 869, 134 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Opinion

The agreement of March 13,1941, to the extent that it purports to relieve defendant of his obligation to provide continuing support to the plaintiff after the child of the marriage attains the age of twenty-one years, is void as against the public policy of the. State (Hyff v. Hyff, 286 N. Y. 71). “Section 51 [Domestic Relations Law], insofar as pertinent, provides that ‘a husband and wife cannot contract to alter or dissolve the marriage or to relieve the husband from his liability to support his wife.’ By such statutory prohibition, husband and wife are stripped of power to relieve the former of his obligation; both are rendered incapable of bargaining away the woman’s right to the man’s support.” (Haas v. Haas, 298 N. Y. 69, 71.) Upon the pleadings and that portion of the record which survives the trial court’s order to expunge, it appears conclusively that plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that such portion of the separation agreement as provides for termination of support and maintenance is invalid; and that it will be no bar at that time to an assertion of plaintiff’s rights as though there were no such provision in the agreement (Rubinfeld v. Rubinfeld, 264 App. Div. 888). The Statute of Limitations being no bar, the judgment should be modified, to recite the foregoing declaration in substance, and to provide that as and when the payments terminate as aforesaid, plaintiff may apply at the foot of the judgment for appropriate relief. Settle order. Present — Cohn, J. P., Callahan, Breitel, Bastow and Botein, JJ.

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

Related

Hummel v. Hummel
62 Misc. 2d 595 (New York Supreme Court, 1970)
Estate of Fabrikant v. Commissioner
39 T.C. 714 (U.S. Tax Court, 1963)
Colla-Negri v. Colla-Negri
19 Misc. 2d 496 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Bold v. Bold
18 Misc. 2d 709 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
284 A.D. 869, 134 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leeds-v-leeds-nyappdiv-1954.