From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Myers v. Myers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 28, 1937
251 App. Div. 267 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)

Opinion

May 28, 1937.

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

Charles Rothenberg of counsel [ J.J. Katz with him on the brief], for the appellant.

Elizabeth Rogers Horan of counsel [ Paxton Blair with her on the brief; Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel], for the respondent.

Present — MARTIN, P.J., TOWNLEY, DORE, COHN and CALLAHAN, JJ.


In September, 1935, judgment was rendered in the Supreme Court, New York county, dismissing the petitioner's complaint for a separation and finding that the petitioner had abandoned the respondent and had refused to return though requested to do so several times. A year and two months later this proceeding was begun in the Domestic Relations Court to procure an allowance for support. An allowance may be granted by the Domestic Relations Court only upon a showing that petitioner is about to become a public charge or that there has been a substantial change in circumstances between the parties. ( Matter of Collins v. Collins, 245 App. Div. 612.) The evidence wholly fails to establish either alternative. Petitioner's offer to return, made after the institution of the proceedings and shortly in advance of the hearing, was obviously made in bad faith.

The order appealed from should be reversed and the proceeding dismissed.


Order unanimously reversed and the proceeding dismissed.


Summaries of

Myers v. Myers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 28, 1937
251 App. Div. 267 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)
Case details for

Myers v. Myers

Case Details

Full title:ETHEL MYERS, Respondent, v. STANLEY S. MYERS, Appellant

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

Date published: May 28, 1937

Citations

251 App. Div. 267 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)
296 N.Y.S. 356

Citing Cases

Myers v. Myers

PER CURIAM. The reversal in this court of the original order ( 251 App. Div. 267) relates back to the…

Brisbois v. Brisbois

The proof does not show any changed circumstance on the part of the respondent since the entry of the…