Batchelor v. Batchelor
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Steinberg v. Steinberg (N.Y. 1966)
- Steinberg v. Steinberg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1966)
- Eylman v. Eylman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1965)
- Fremont v. Fremont (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1963)
- People ex rel. Roosevelt v. Roosevelt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1961)
- Dominick v. Dominick (New York Supreme Court 1960)
- Garfinkel v. Garefinkel (New York Supreme Court 1960)
- Mullane v. Mullane (New York Supreme Court 1960)
- Eckerson v. Eckerson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1954)
- Rizzi v. Rizzi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1951)
- Staniszewski v. Staniszewski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1950)
- Filicaza v. Filicaza (New York Family Court 1948)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Before plaintiff was entitled to a judgment of separation upon the ground that defendant had failed to support her while they were living separate and apart by mutual consent, it was necessary for her to establish that she offered *545 in good faith to return to her husband and resume the marital status. Lack óf that proof required a dismissal of her second cause of action. (Solomon v. Solomon, 290 N. Y. 337. 340-341; cf. Mirizio v. Mirizio, 242 N. Y. 74, 82.) Accordingly it was error to direct judgment of separation in favor of plaintiff and against the- defendant. Insofar as the judgment directs that plaintiff is entitled to a separation and alimony it should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, without costs; otherwise the judgment should be affirmed, without costs.
The judgments should be modified in accordance with this opinion, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.
Loughrax, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thaoher, JJ., concur; Dye and Fuld, JJ., taking no part.
Judgment accordingly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.