Legal Opinion

Rizzi v. Rizzi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 26, 1951PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*677Defendant’s time to answer is extended to ten days after the entry of the order hereon if plaintiff does not serve an amended complaint. The parties were living separate and apart by mutual consent prior to June 4, 1951. In our opinion, the second cause of action for nonsupport during the period while they were living apart is insufficient in the absence of (1) facts showing that defendant’s payment to plaintiff of $300 a month was inadequate (Berg v. Berg, 289 N. Y. 513; 3 Nelson on Divorce and Annulment [2d ed.], § 32.25, pp. 394 — 395); (2) allegations that plaintiff did not violate the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Solomon v. SolomonNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
  2. Batchelor v. BatchelorNew York Court of Appeals · 1946
  3. Berg v. BergNew York Court of Appeals · 1943

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Pustilnik v. PustilnikAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
  2. Palese v. PaleseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1966
  3. Harmen v. HarmenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1961

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API