Rosmarin v. Rosmarin

238 A.D. 798
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 15, 1933·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order granting summary judgment, in so far as appealed from, and judgment entered thereon unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. We are of opinion that the covenants are independent and that the wife’s omission or refusal to abide by the covenant not to begin a matrimonial action does not affect the husband’s obligation to pay the stipulated amount for the support of the child during minority. The obligation of support of the child is not conditioned on the wife’s covenant not to sue, and the agreement for the support of the child “ is looked upon as a substitute for the legal duty ” of the father. (See Thomas v. Thomas, 104 N. J. Eq. 607, 609; Sabbarese v. Sabbarese, 104 id. 600, at p. 601, the latter affirmed on that opinion in 107 id. 184.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Carswell, Seudder and Davis, JJ. ,

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

Rosmarin v. Rosmarin, 238 A.D. 798 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

238 A.D. 798 (Rosmarin v. Rosmarin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kulok v. Kulok
40 Misc. 2d 999 (New York District Court, 1963)
Lipkind v. Lewis
198 Misc. 822 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1950)