Pinkus v. Pinkus

230 A.D. 791
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 15, 1930
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 230 A.D. 791 (Pinkus v. Pinkus) 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
Pinkus v. Pinkus, 230 A.D. 791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Opinion

Judgment modified by reducing the amount thereof to the sum of $300, the amount demanded under plaintiff’s second cause of action, with interest and costs, and as so modified unanimously affirmed, without costs. The separation agreement entered into between the parties on October 28,1925, was breached by the husband, the defendant, by reason of his non-payment of $30 per week, beginning December 12, 1925. When he brought an action on December 17, 1925, against the plaintiff wife for a divorce and she counterclaimed for a separation, settmg up the separation agreement and its breach by the defendant husband, she thereby rescinded such separation agreement and cannot now sue for installments claimed thereunder from December 12, 1925, to July 17, 1926. Fmdings of fact and conclusions of law are not res adjudicóla unless followed by a judgment based thereon, which is relevant to the issues, and the defendant husband is not bound by a provision in the judgment declaring the separation agreement wMch had beeq entered into October 28, 1925, termmated at the date of the judgment. It was terminated by the service by the plaintiff herem of an answer in the divorce action setting up a counterclaim for a separation. Findings of fact inconsistent herewith and the conclusion of law are reversed and new findings and a new conclusion will be made. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Young, Seudder and TompMns, JJ. Settle order on notice.

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

Related

Begelman v. Begelman
170 A.D.2d 562 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Peterson v. Forkey
50 A.D.2d 774 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
Zizzi v. Zizzi
33 A.D.2d 926 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1970)
Mandracchia v. Russo
53 Misc. 2d 1018 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1967)
Cavellier v. Cavellier
4 A.D.2d 600 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1957)
Holahan v. Holahan
191 Misc. 47 (New York Supreme Court, 1947)
Wiederhorn v. Karlan
267 A.D. 163 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1943)
Woods v. Bard
259 A.D. 1093 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1940)
O'Brien v. O'Brien
252 A.D. 427 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1937)
Gray v. Gray
149 Misc. 273 (New York Supreme Court, 1932)
Duchini v. Duchini
179 Misc. 1061 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
230 A.D. 791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinkus-v-pinkus-nyappdiv-1930.