From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cohen v. Cohen

New York Common Pleas — Special Term
Mar 1, 1895
11 Misc. 704 (N.Y. Misc. 1895)

Opinion

March, 1895.

Joseph I. Green, for motion.

William N. Loew, opposed.


This is an application by the wife for counsel fees to enable her to defend the action, which is brought by the husband for a divorce on the ground of adultery.

Where the wife denies, on oath, the charge, she is entitled to such allowance, even though the affidavits read on the part of the husband show her guilt ( Osgood v. Osgood, 2 Paige, 621; Hallock v. Hallock, 4 How. Pr. 160; Frickel v. Frickel, 4 Misc. 382; 24 N.Y.S. 483); "unless," as was said by Judge GILDERSLEEVE in the case last cited, "it appears clear beyond reasonable doubt that the ultimate success of the husband in the litigation is inevitable."

The defendant takes oath in denial of the charges, and in view of this denial and of the allegations contained in her moving affidavit, although the latter are very vague in character, there is no justification, under the authorities, for deciding the question of her guilt upon such conflicting affidavits. Leslie v. Leslie, 6 Abb. Pr. (N.S.) 193; Frickel v. Frickel, supra; Hallock v. Hallock, supra.

A careful consideration of the papers submitted satisfied me that the plaintiff is absolutely without means; but his poverty is no defense to the application. Hallock v. Hallock, supra; Frickel v. Frickel, supra. He must, in an action of this character, either furnish the wife with money to enable her to make her defense or abandon the action. Purcell v. Purcell, 3 Edw. Ch. 194. Great injustice might be done if the husband were not compelled to furnish to his wife the means of having so important a question of fact as is involved in this action decided in the usual manner. Hallock v. Hallock, supra.

It is proper, however, to take into consideration the pecuniary ability of the husband and the circumstances in life of the parties in fixing the amount of the allowance. Hallock v. Hallock, supra. From a consideration of these matters, as well as of the facts and circumstances of the case as disclosed by the papers submitted upon this motion, I am of the opinion that the defendant should have a counsel fee of twenty-five dollars to defend the action, which the plaintiff should pay within five days after the entry of the order.

Motion granted.


Summaries of

Cohen v. Cohen

New York Common Pleas — Special Term
Mar 1, 1895
11 Misc. 704 (N.Y. Misc. 1895)
Case details for

Cohen v. Cohen

Case Details

Full title:BERNARD COHEN, Plaintiff, v . CARRIE COHEN, Defendant

Court:New York Common Pleas — Special Term

Date published: Mar 1, 1895

Citations

11 Misc. 704 (N.Y. Misc. 1895)

Citing Cases

Wallman v. Wallman

Such is the rule in New York. We quote from Cohen v. Cohen, 11 Misc. Rep. 704, 32 N.Y. Supp. 1082: "A careful…

People v. Brady

The injustice of such a doctrine is apparent when we recall that the husband in a divorce suit must not only…