Polizotti v. Polizotti, 305 N. Y. 176, 111 N. E. 2d 869 (1953)

Ertell, Dewey, Jr.

Manuele, Robert

English

bepress Legal Repository

Domestic Relations—Husband-Wife—Alimony Pendente Lite

Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law

Buffalo Law Review Volume 3 Number 1 Article 45 12-1-1953 Domestic Relations—Husband-Wife—Alimony Pendente Lite Robert Manuele Dewey Ertell Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview  Part of the Family Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert Manuele & Dewey Ertell Jr., Domestic Relations—Husband-Wife—Alimony Pendente Lite, 3 Buff. L. Rev. 118 (1953). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol3/iss1/45 This The Court of Appeals Term is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact lawscholar@buffalo.edu. . BUFFALO LAW REVIEWAlimay Pe-ndente LitePending an action for divorce, annulment or separation inNew York, the court at its discretion, by order, may require thehusband to provide the necessary monies to support the wife andchildren and to enable the wife to carry on or to defend the ac-tion." Such payments, frequently referred to as alimony pen-deinte life, apply only while the court has jurisdiction over the par-ties. 9 Enforcement of payments by the proper motion is deemedapplicable only where the court has jurisdiction 0 and is thereforelost where the action is terminated, 1 e. g., by settlement,2 aban-donment,43 discontinuance, 44 dismissal of complaint."It Polizotti v. Polizotti4g the husband was delinquent in tem-porary alimony payments. The wife was held unable to punish herhusband for civil contempt 47 for although the motion was madeprior to dismissal of her petition for separation the finding of civilcoltempt was rendered after dismissal of the petition for separa-tion. The Court of Appeals held that the Appellate Division didnot have the jurisdiction or power to modify the contempt order,dating it n'unc pro tune48 as of date of wife's motion.IX. LA:BoR LAw.IRternal Union ManagementIn Mates!e v. Dubinsk.y,' the Court of Appeals had to deter-mine the validity of a provision of defendant union's constitu-tion. Plaintiff was elected business agent of Local Union 48, In-ternational Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, an unincorporatedassociation. The constitution and by-laws of the International38. C. P. A. § 1169.39. Ibid.40. Karlin v. Karlin, 280 N. Y. 32, 19 N. E. 2d 669 (1939).41. A motion, C P. A. § 113, relates to -an incidental question collateral to themain object of am action and is dependent on the principal remedy. Matter of Tilden,117 Misc. 656, 191 N. Y. Supp. 766 (Surr. Ct. 1922).42. Conklin v. Conklin, 201 App. Div. 170, 194 N. Y. Supp. 685 (1920), aff'd, 234N. Y. 546, 138 N. E. 441 (1922).43. Carbulon v. Carbulon, 293 N. Y. 375, 57 N. E. 2d 59 (1944).44. Matter of Thrall v. Thrall, 12 App. Div. 235, 42 N. Y. Supp. 439 (1st Dep't1896), af'd, 153 N. Y. 644, 47 N. E. 1111 (1897).45. Hayes v. Hatfes, 350 App. Div. 8142, 135 N. Y. Supp. -25 (2nd Dep't 1912),afj'd, 208 N. Y. 600, 102 N. E. 1104 (1913).46. 305 N. Y. 176, 111 N. E. 2d 869 (1953).47. JUDICIARY LAW § 753.48. The function of an order nunc pro tunc is to correct irregularities in the entryof judicial mandates or like procedural errors, Mohrmann v. Kob, 291 N. Y. 181, 51N. E. 2d 921 (1943).1. 304 N. Y. 450, 108 N. E. 2d 604 (1952).

https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4394&context=buffalolawreview

Domestic Relations—Husband-Wife—Alimony Pendente Lite

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

bepress Legal Repository

Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law