From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Winter v. Winter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 7, 1936
246 App. Div. 232 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)

Summary

In Matter of Winter v. Winter (246 App. Div. 232), a proceeding under subdivision (9) of section 92 and subdivision 4 of section 101 of the Domestic Relations Court Act of the City of New York, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Family Court order requiring a father to pay to his adult daughter a certain sum each week for her support, and dismissed the petition, because the evidence failed to disclose that petitioner was likely to become a public charge or that she was unable to obtain employment.

Summary of this case from Kinsey v. Kinsey

Opinion

February 7, 1936.

Appeal from Domestic Relations Court of the City of New York, Family Court Division, County of New York.

Mayer C. Goldman, for the appellant.

Arthur Bainbridge Hoff, Jr. [ Paxton Blair with him on the brief; Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel, attorney], for the respondent.

Present — MARTIN, P.J., O'MALLEY, UNTERMYER, DORE and COHN, JJ.


The evidence failed to show that the petitioner, the adult daughter of appellant, was likely to become a public charge. On the contrary it appears clearly that there was no likelihood of such an event happening. Moreover, the evidence does not disclose that the petitioner was unable to obtain employment of some kind.

The order should be reversed and the petition dismissed.


Order reversed and the petition dismissed.


Summaries of

Matter of Winter v. Winter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 7, 1936
246 App. Div. 232 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)

In Matter of Winter v. Winter (246 App. Div. 232), a proceeding under subdivision (9) of section 92 and subdivision 4 of section 101 of the Domestic Relations Court Act of the City of New York, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Family Court order requiring a father to pay to his adult daughter a certain sum each week for her support, and dismissed the petition, because the evidence failed to disclose that petitioner was likely to become a public charge or that she was unable to obtain employment.

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

Matter of Winter v. Winter

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MARIAN H. WINTER, Respondent, against ERNEST WINTER…

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

Date published: Feb 7, 1936

Citations

246 App. Div. 232 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)
285 N.Y.S. 260

Citing Cases

Mays v. Mays

In the circumstances it clearly appears that there is no likelihood of petitioner's becoming a public charge.…

Matter of Kells v. Kells

Appellant's argument that, because of a pending action in Queens County, New York County was without…