Case ID: ad_247/html/0192-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Elizabeth Costa, Respondent, against William Costa, Appellant.
    First Department,
    March 27, 1936.
    
      
      Isidore Miller of counsel [Samuel S. Allan with him on the brief; Weisman, Quinn, Allan & Spett, attorneys], for the appellant.
    
      Arthur Bainbridge Hoff, Jr., of counsel [Paxton Blair with him on the brief; Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel, attorney], for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

In view of the testimony of the petitioner that she is regularly receiving ten dollars a week from the appellant and furthermore that her parents are willing that she shall five with them, it cannot be said that the petitioner is likely to become a public charge,” which constitutes the only basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Domestic Relations Court during the pendency in the Supreme Court of an action for a separation between the parties. (Dom. Rel. Ct. Act [Laws of 1933, chap. 482], § 137; Matter of Collins v. Collins, 245 App. Div. 612; Matter of Chandler v. Chandler, 241 id. 390.)

The order should be reversed and the petition dismissed.

Townley, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ., concur; Martin, P. J., concurs in result.

Order unanimously reversed and the petition dismissed.