From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kelley v. Kelley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 4, 1949
275 App. Div. 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)

Opinion

May 4, 1949.

Present — Taylor, P.J., McCurn, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ.


Judgment modified on the law in accordance with the memorandum and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Certain findings of fact and conclusions of law disapproved and reversed and new findings made. Memorandum: In this action brought to recover unpaid installments of alimony alleged to be due under the provisions of a judgment of absolute divorce granted to plaintiff in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial District of the State of Florida upon grounds other than adultery, the plaintiff is not entitled to invoke the equitable remedies provided by sections 1171 and 1172 of the Civil Practice Act. ( Miller v. Miller, 219 App. Div. 61, affd. 246 N.Y. 636; Babcock v. Babcock, 147 Misc. 900, 903, affd. 239 App. Div. 884. See, also, Boissevain v. Boissevain, 252 N.Y. 178, 181; Smith v. Smith, 255 App. Div. 652, 653-654.) Plaintiff is entitled only to a money judgment in the sum of $825, being the amount of alimony due and unpaid when the action was commenced, with interest from January 9, 1941, to April 27, 1948. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an action to recover accrued alimony.)


Summaries of

Kelley v. Kelley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 4, 1949
275 App. Div. 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)
Case details for

Kelley v. Kelley

Case Details

Full title:ELSBETH F. KELLEY, Respondent, v. WAYNE P. KELLEY, Appellant

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

Date published: May 4, 1949

Citations

275 App. Div. 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)

Citing Cases

Zarembka v. Zarembka

In fact the complaint alleged part performance by him. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages only up to…

Matter of Seitz v. Drogheo

At common law the courts of this State had no jurisdiction over matrimonial matters and, hence, the power of…