Wagner v. Wagner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wagner v. Wagner

257 A.D. 307, 13 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7744

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

DecidedJune 29, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 257 A.D. 307 (Wagner v. Wagner) 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

Wagner v. Wagner, 257 A.D. 307, 13 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7744 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There was sufficient proof before the Family Court to warrant a finding by it that the petitioner’s wife and her child, who are in Germany at the present time, have gone there merely for a temporary stay. In the light of this proof we feel that it was within the discretion of the court and within its power, as stated by section 92 of the Domestic Relations Court Act of the City of New York, to deny the application for suspension of the order. Section 92 defines the powers of the Family Court to include the following: “ (1) to order support of a wife or child or both, irrespective of whether either is likely to become a public charge, as justice requires having due regard to the circumstances of the respective parties.”

[308]*308We reserve the question as to whether the right to continue an order such as was made here would exist where the persons benefited reside permanently without the State.

If the wife does not return within a reasonable time, the applicacation to the Family Court may be renewed upon proper proof.

The order should be affirmed.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Order unanimously affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

There was sufficient proof before the Family Court to warrant a finding by it that the petitioner’s wife and her child, who are in Germany at the present time, have gone there merely for a temporary stay. In the light of this proof we feel that it was within the discretion of the court and within its power, as stated by section 92 of the Domestic Relations Court Act of the City of New York, to deny the application for suspension of the order. Section 92 defines the powers of the Family Court to include the following: “ (1) to order support of a wife or child or both, irrespective of whether either is likely to become a public charge, as justice requires having due regard to the circumstances of the respective parties.”

[308]*308We reserve the question as to whether the right to continue an order such as was made here would exist where the persons benefited reside permanently without the State.

If the wife does not return within a reasonable time, the applicacation to the Family Court may be renewed upon proper proof.

The order should be affirmed.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Order unanimously affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 307, 13 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wagner-v-wagner-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack