Zatz v. Zatz

173 Misc. 229, 17 N.Y.S.2d 553, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2683
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided January 5, 1940·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff may not maintain an action on the separation agreement for support and maintenance which by its terms was required to be and was incorporated in the divorce decree obtained by plaintiff. (See Breiterman v. Breiterman, 239 App. Div. 709, and Landes v. Landes, 172 id. 758.)

Judgment and orders reversed, with ten dollars costs, plaintiff’s motion denied, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted.

Hammer and Shientag, JJ., concur; Noonan, J., dissents.

Noonan, J. I dissent and vote for affirmance.

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

Zatz v. Zatz, 173 Misc. 229, 17 N.Y.S.2d 553, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2683 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

173 Misc. 229 (Zatz v. Zatz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Howland v. Stitzer
84 S.E.2d 167 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Jaeckel v. Jaeckel
179 Misc. 994 (New York Supreme Court, 1943)