Zipser v. Hardy

New York Supreme Court

Zipser v. Hardy

3 Misc. 2d 749, 57 N.Y.S.2d 482

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 20, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 Misc. 2d 749 (Zipser v. Hardy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zipser v. Hardy, 3 Misc. 2d 749, 57 N.Y.S.2d 482 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Bernard Botein, J.

When married parties are living together, there is an implied authority in the wife, stemming from that marital relation, to order and receive necessaries at the husband’s expense. If, as claimed by the defendant, they are living apart as a result of the wife’s affirmative wrongdoing, a triable issue is raised as to whether the alleged destruction of that aspect of the marital status gave rise to the necessity of invoking the legal services which form the basis of this action. (See Pearson v. Pearson, 230 N. Y. 141; Damman v. Bancroft, 43 Misc. 678.) A wife may not charge her husband, under the guise of necessaries, with the expenses of repairing part of the ravages which followed directly in the wake of her wrongful acts. An issue of fact is also raised by the third defense, viz., that plaintiff’s services were rendered on the sole credit of the wife. (Matter of Oppenheim, 178 Misc. 1026, and cases cited therein.) Plaintiff fails to set forth any facts as to the terms of his retention, if any, although this failure has been specifically challenged by the defendant.

Motion is in all respects denied, as is defendant’s application for a stay.

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

Bernard Botein, J.

When married parties are living together, there is an implied authority in the wife, stemming from that marital relation, to order and receive necessaries at the husband’s expense. If, as claimed by the defendant, they are living apart as a result of the wife’s affirmative wrongdoing, a triable issue is raised as to whether the alleged destruction of that aspect of the marital status gave rise to the necessity of invoking the legal services which form the basis of this action. (See Pearson v. Pearson, 230 N. Y. 141; Damman v. Bancroft, 43 Misc. 678.) A wife may not charge her husband, under the guise of necessaries, with the expenses of repairing part of the ravages which followed directly in the wake of her wrongful acts. An issue of fact is also raised by the third defense, viz., that plaintiff’s services were rendered on the sole credit of the wife. (Matter of Oppenheim, 178 Misc. 1026, and cases cited therein.) Plaintiff fails to set forth any facts as to the terms of his retention, if any, although this failure has been specifically challenged by the defendant.

Motion is in all respects denied, as is defendant’s application for a stay.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Misc. 2d 749, 57 N.Y.S.2d 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zipser-v-hardy-nysupct-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack