From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pierot v. Pierot

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 16, 1975
49 A.D.2d 838 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975)

Opinion

October 16, 1975


Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 7, 1975, denying plaintiff's motion for support pendente lite and counsel fees unanimously affirmed. Respondents shall recover of appellant $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. As stated by Special Term, the action herein is nonmatrimonial in nature (see Johnson v Johnson, 206 N.Y. 561; Riemer v Riemer, 31 A.D.2d 482) and accordingly, sections 236 Dom. Rel. and 237 Dom. Rel. of the Domestic Relations Law are not applicable to this action. Moreover, while the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to award support separate and apart from a matrimonial action (Kagen v Kagen, 21 N.Y.2d 532; Levy v Levy, 46 A.D.2d 876; Family Ct. Act, art 4, §§ 411, 412, 442), and to grant temporary support in such action (Levy v Levy, supra; Family Ct. Act, § 434), support may not be granted in this case since the parties are not presently husband and wife — an outstanding bilateral divorce decree admittedly being in effect. Nor do the circumstances herein come within the case of McMains v McMains ( 15 N.Y.2d 283), where the Court of Appeals under limited circumstances permitted the modification of a divorce decree insofar as alimony was concerned despite the fact that the parties had entered into a separation agreement, subsequently incorporated into the divorce decree.

Concur — Stevens, P.J., Kupferman, Murphy, Tilzer and Nunez, JJ.


Summaries of

Pierot v. Pierot

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 16, 1975
49 A.D.2d 838 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975)
Case details for

Pierot v. Pierot

Case Details

Full title:RUTH W. PIEROT, Appellant, v. ROBERT J. PIEROT et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Oct 16, 1975

Citations

49 A.D.2d 838 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975)

Citing Cases

Matter of Gotlib v. Ratsutsky

While both parties assert that it was their intention to remarry once in the United States, in fact, they did…

Lombardi v. Suffolk County

When the Supreme Court entertains a support proceeding, it is bound by the substantive and procedural rules…