Pierot v. Pierot

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pierot v. Pierot

49 A.D.2d 838, 373 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10980

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 16, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 838 (Pierot v. Pierot) 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

Pierot v. Pierot, 49 A.D.2d 838, 373 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10980 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 7, 1975, denying plaintiff’s motion for support pendente lite and counsel fees unanimously affirmed. Respondents shall recover of appellant $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. As stated by Special Term, the action herein is nonmatrimonial in nature (see Johnson v Johnson, 206 NY 561; Riemer r Riemer, 31 AD2d 482) and accordingly, sections 236 and 237 of the Domestic Relations Law are not applicable to this action. Moreover, while the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to award support separate and apart from a matrimonial action (Kagen v Kagen, 21 NY2d 532; Levy v Levy, 46 AD2d 876; Family Ct. Act, art 4, §§ 411, 412, 442), and to grant temporary support [839]*839in such action (Levy v Levy, supra; Family Ct. Act, § 434), support may not be granted in this case since the parties are not presently husband and wife —an outstanding bilateral divorce decree admittedly being in effect. Nor do the circumstances herein come within the case of McMains v McMains (15 NY2d 283), where the Court of Appeals under limited circumstances permitted the modification of a divorce decree insofar as alimony was concerned despite the fact that the parties had entered into a separation agreement, subsequently incorporated into the divorce decree. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Kupferman, Murphy, Tilzer and Nunez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 7, 1975, denying plaintiff’s motion for support pendente lite and counsel fees unanimously affirmed. Respondents shall recover of appellant $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. As stated by Special Term, the action herein is nonmatrimonial in nature (see Johnson v Johnson, 206 NY 561; Riemer r Riemer, 31 AD2d 482) and accordingly, sections 236 and 237 of the Domestic Relations Law are not applicable to this action. Moreover, while the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to award support separate and apart from a matrimonial action (Kagen v Kagen, 21 NY2d 532; Levy v Levy, 46 AD2d 876; Family Ct. Act, art 4, §§ 411, 412, 442), and to grant temporary support [839]*839in such action (Levy v Levy, supra; Family Ct. Act, § 434), support may not be granted in this case since the parties are not presently husband and wife —an outstanding bilateral divorce decree admittedly being in effect. Nor do the circumstances herein come within the case of McMains v McMains (15 NY2d 283), where the Court of Appeals under limited circumstances permitted the modification of a divorce decree insofar as alimony was concerned despite the fact that the parties had entered into a separation agreement, subsequently incorporated into the divorce decree. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Kupferman, Murphy, Tilzer and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 838, 373 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierot-v-pierot-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack