From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hirschfield v. Hirschfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 26, 1976
54 A.D.2d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Summary

In Hirschfield, this court specifically rejected the contention that an open and notorious quasi-marital relationship with another man is equivalent to remarriage, despite the provisions of section 248 Dom. Rel. of the Domestic Relations Law. That section has no application to separation agreements. (Leffler v Leffler, supra; Northrup v Northrup, 43 N.Y.2d 566). Moreover, there is no evidence submitted that plaintiff held herself out as the wife of another man. Similarly deficient is the counterclaim alleging that plaintiff had in fact remarried.

Summary of this case from Goodman v. Goodman

Opinion

October 26, 1976


Appeal from the order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 13, 1975, unanimously dismissed, without costs, and without disbursements. The appeal purports to be from an intermediate order which denied an application to take depositions in aid of plaintiff's cause of action. After a final judgment is entered, an appeal from the final judgment is the only method for reviewing an intermediate order. (See Jema Props. v McLeod, 51 A.D.2d 702; Dayon v Downe Communications, 42 A.D.2d 889.) To review an intermediate order on an appeal from a final judgment pursuant to CPLR 5501 (subd [a], par 1) the order must be one which necessarily affects the final judgment. The order appealed from does not necessarily affect the final judgment and is not properly reviewable on appeal therefrom. (See CPLR 5501, subd [a], par 1; Dulber v Dulber, 37 A.D.2d 566.) Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 6, 1975, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs, and without disbursements. In reliance on section 248 Dom. Rel. of the Domestic Relations Law, plaintiff-appellant claims his former spouse to have brought about termination of their separation agreement in that her open and notorious quasi-marital relationship with another man is the equivalent of remarriage. We have heretofore held that the statute may not be availed of for this purpose. (Leffler v Leffler, 50 A.D.2d 93, 95.)

Concur — Markewich, J.P., Murphy, Lupiano, Birns and Nunez, JJ.


Summaries of

Hirschfield v. Hirschfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 26, 1976
54 A.D.2d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

In Hirschfield, this court specifically rejected the contention that an open and notorious quasi-marital relationship with another man is equivalent to remarriage, despite the provisions of section 248 Dom. Rel. of the Domestic Relations Law. That section has no application to separation agreements. (Leffler v Leffler, supra; Northrup v Northrup, 43 N.Y.2d 566). Moreover, there is no evidence submitted that plaintiff held herself out as the wife of another man. Similarly deficient is the counterclaim alleging that plaintiff had in fact remarried.

Summary of this case from Goodman v. Goodman
Case details for

Hirschfield v. Hirschfield

Case Details

Full title:LEONARD HIRSCHFIELD, Appellant, v. RUTH HIRSCHFIELD et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 26, 1976

Citations

54 A.D.2d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Citing Cases

Sypek v. Sypek

The court finds that he indeed did so by eliminating the second prong of section 248 so that the wife's…

Litwack v. Litwack

"No assertion of fraud or mistake attendant upon the execution of the separation agreement is made. So long…