Patton v. Patton
This text of 35 N.Y.S. 250 (Patton v. Patton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It has been the practice of this court, for some time past, to decline to entertain motions for alimony and counsel fees in suits for a separation. In Ruopp v. Ruopp (Super. N. Y.) 35 N. Y. Supp. 251, Judge McAdam wrote as follows:
“Support may be summarily coerced through the police courts. These tribunals have the coercive process,—short, sharp, and decisive,—corps of officers, and the power of commitment, of a much more summary character than that possessed by any court of record. It was intentionally made so by "the legislature, and plaintiff ought to avail herself of these facilities.”
[251]*251This ruling has been repeatedly followed by the judges of this court, and in the present case I feel constrained to adhere to former precedents. The motion for alimony and counsel fees is denied, without prejudice to police remedies. No costs.
• Motion denied, without costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
35 N.Y.S. 250, 13 Misc. 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patton-v-patton-superctny-1895.