172 Misc. 114 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1939
This motion presents an almost insoluble problem to the court. The defendant does not deny his default in the sum of $420 as alleged in the moving papers but appears in person and submits affidavits of himself and his physician as to his physical condition which stand uncontradicted upon this motion and reveal a condition which must very seriously interfere with the performance of his duties as a landscape gardener. In addition to this it appears that by reason of the depression in the nursery field he is employed but a portion of the year and that at present his income is curtailed to such an extent that he is able to contribute very little toward the satisfaction of the judgment herein. The defendant also submitted affidavits of prominent business men in the village of Dansville in support of his contention that he has been furnishing some clothing and wearing apparel for the children. There is, of course, no provision in the judgment for such action, but a court of equity will take into consideration the good faith of these acts in considering this motion for contempt.
The courts of this State have uniformly held that upon a motion to reduce an order or judgment for alimony no relief can be granted as to amounts which have become due prior to the time of the application. Those sums have become vested rights of property which the Supreme Court has no power to take from the party in whose favor they have been awarded. (Harris v. Harris, 259 N. Y. 334.) Therefore, although I am disposed to relieve the defendant from this burden which it is obvious he is in no position to carry, I am precluded from doing so.
While there is no formal counter motion on the part of this layman praying for a modification of the provisions of the judgment for alimony herein, this defendant, upon his oral argument, made' an appeal to the court for relief, and counsel for the plaintiff courteously refrained from interposing any objection to the court’s consideration of this, along with the other questions submitted. The court, having power to entertain this counter application, will not refuse so to do solely by reason of the fact that the defendant is in arrears under the judgment herein. (Shacknow v. Shacknow, 146 Misc. 8.)
Having reached the conclusion that the accrued amount must stand and that this defendant is not in physical or financial condition to liquidate this obligation or resume the seven dollars weekly payments provided by the judgment, I believe equity may accomplish the same and without imprisonment which the Judiciary
Let order enter accordingly.