Reed v. Thompson

NYC Family Court

Reed v. Thompson

77 Misc. 2d 1018, 355 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1974 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1290

CourtNew York City Family Court

DecidedMay 7, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 77 Misc. 2d 1018 (Reed v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York City Family Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reed v. Thompson, 77 Misc. 2d 1018, 355 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1974 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1290 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Joseph T. Pilato, J.

The Department of Social Services brought a petition alleging that the ex-wife of their recipient is responsible for his support. There is no allegation that he was a recipient or in need of assistance at the time respondent divorced him. The divorce was granted on a fault ground and provided no support for the defendant (husband).

The statutes creating a responsibility of a spouse to support his espoused (Family Ct. Act, § 413; Social Services Law, § 101, subd. 1) are penal in nature and must be strictly construed. (Matter of West v. Charles, 46 Misc 2d 200; Matter of Lasher v. Decker, 43 Misc 2d 211.)

An ex-spouse is not a ‘ ‘ spouse ’ ’ under those sections of the law.

It seems logical that if entering into a marriage contract creates certain duties, that an unconditional dissolution of that contract removes them.

Petition is dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.

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