Rizzi v. Rizzi
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
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
- Solomon v. SolomonNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
- Batchelor v. BatchelorNew York Court of Appeals · 1946
- Berg v. BergNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
3Cited by3 opinions
- Pustilnik v. PustilnikAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
- Palese v. PaleseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1966
- Harmen v. HarmenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1961