From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fairchild Sons v. Diskin

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Oct 6, 1949
196 Misc. 495 (N.Y. App. Term 1949)

Opinion

October 6, 1949.

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, BREITBART, J.

William J. Drake for appellant.

Thomas W. Constable for respondent.


Under the circumstances here disclosed, in the absence of an express contract to pay his father's funeral expenses, defendant Diskin could not be held liable therefor. There was no legal obligation upon him to pay such expenses by reason of the filial relationship. The provisions of statutes which impose liability on children for the support of indigent parents may be enforced only at the instance of the public authorities ( Rutecki v. Lukaszewski, 273 A.D. 638; Bellucci v. Dalessio, N.Y.L.J., Feb. 8, 1936, p. 727, col. 2). Additionally it appears that others pledged their credit for the payment of the funeral expenses.

The judgment should be unanimously reversed on the law and facts, with $30 costs to appellant, and complaint dismissed, with appropriate costs in the court below.

STEINBRINK, FENNELLY and RUBENSTEIN, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Fairchild Sons v. Diskin

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Oct 6, 1949
196 Misc. 495 (N.Y. App. Term 1949)
Case details for

Fairchild Sons v. Diskin

Case Details

Full title:FAIRCHILD SONS, INC., Respondent, v. WILLIAM J. DISKIN, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Oct 6, 1949

Citations

196 Misc. 495 (N.Y. App. Term 1949)
94 N.Y.S.2d 175

Citing Cases

Schoenfeld v. Ochsenhaut

Moreover, that statute is enforceable only by public welfare officials, not by private citizens who seek to…

Moloney Funeral Home v. Gurnell

While this court is possessed of plenary judiciary power (N.Y. Const., art. VI, §§ 1, 7; Matter of Niagara…