Paradise v. Ridley

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Paradise v. Ridley

173 Misc. 729, 19 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1608

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 28, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 173 Misc. 729 (Paradise v. Ridley) 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

Paradise v. Ridley, 173 Misc. 729, 19 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1608 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The rule that an award of alimony and counsel fee exempts a husband from further common-law liability therefor [730]*730(Turner v. Woolworth, 221 N. Y. 425), does not apply where same is denied upon motion pendente lite and the action is discontinued. (Elder v. Rosenwasser, 238 N. Y. 427; Dravecka v. Richard, 267 id. 180; Goldberg v. Keller, 236 App. Div. 541; Ehrlich v. McKee, 170 Misc. 222; affd., 258 App. Div. 715.) In the absence of special agreement upon which a discontinuance is based in no sense is such a termination of an action conclusive upon the parties, or their attorneys, of the merits of the rights involved in the controversy. An order made upon a motion for alimony and counsel fees pendente lite is not conclusive. Only a final judgment upon the merits settles conclusively the questions at issue. (Bannon v. Bannon, 270 N. Y. 484.) However, insufficiency of the defense would not relieve plaintiff of the burden of proving all the elements necessary to establish his right to recover for legal services including proof that the suit brought was for the protection and support of the wife and the conduct of the husband such as to render its institution and prosecution reasonable and proper. (Naumer v. Gray, 28 App. Div. 529.)

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs, and motion grantéd. Appeal from order denying reargument dismissed.

All concur. Present — McCook, Hammer and Miller, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The rule that an award of alimony and counsel fee exempts a husband from further common-law liability therefor [730]*730(Turner v. Woolworth, 221 N. Y. 425), does not apply where same is denied upon motion pendente lite and the action is discontinued. (Elder v. Rosenwasser, 238 N. Y. 427; Dravecka v. Richard, 267 id. 180; Goldberg v. Keller, 236 App. Div. 541; Ehrlich v. McKee, 170 Misc. 222; affd., 258 App. Div. 715.) In the absence of special agreement upon which a discontinuance is based in no sense is such a termination of an action conclusive upon the parties, or their attorneys, of the merits of the rights involved in the controversy. An order made upon a motion for alimony and counsel fees pendente lite is not conclusive. Only a final judgment upon the merits settles conclusively the questions at issue. (Bannon v. Bannon, 270 N. Y. 484.) However, insufficiency of the defense would not relieve plaintiff of the burden of proving all the elements necessary to establish his right to recover for legal services including proof that the suit brought was for the protection and support of the wife and the conduct of the husband such as to render its institution and prosecution reasonable and proper. (Naumer v. Gray, 28 App. Div. 529.)

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs, and motion grantéd. Appeal from order denying reargument dismissed.

All concur. Present — McCook, Hammer and Miller, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 Misc. 729, 19 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paradise-v-ridley-nyappterm-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack