Mintz v. Mintz

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Mintz v. Mintz

5 Misc. 2d 542, 158 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1498

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 18, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 Misc. 2d 542 (Mintz v. Mintz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mintz v. Mintz, 5 Misc. 2d 542, 158 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1498 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In addition to the reasons given below for denial of the motion, it should be pointed out that this is an opposite sort of situation from that involved in Nichols v. Nichols (306 N. Y. 490) where the support provisions for the wife and children were ‘ ‘ unitary and unallocated ’ ’ and the court refused “ to do what the parties had failed to do, that is, apportion the total sum” (p. 497). Here the agreement explicitly provides one amount for the wife’s support and another for the children’s support. Defendant is accordingly entitled to show at a trial that it was he who has expended directly the sum specified therein for the children’s support and therefore may limit his payments to plaintiff to the sum allocated for her support.

The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

Ebeb, Heoht and Tilzeb, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

In addition to the reasons given below for denial of the motion, it should be pointed out that this is an opposite sort of situation from that involved in Nichols v. Nichols (306 N. Y. 490) where the support provisions for the wife and children were ‘ ‘ unitary and unallocated ’ ’ and the court refused “ to do what the parties had failed to do, that is, apportion the total sum” (p. 497). Here the agreement explicitly provides one amount for the wife’s support and another for the children’s support. Defendant is accordingly entitled to show at a trial that it was he who has expended directly the sum specified therein for the children’s support and therefore may limit his payments to plaintiff to the sum allocated for her support.

The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

Ebeb, Heoht and Tilzeb, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Misc. 2d 542, 158 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mintz-v-mintz-nyappterm-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack