Perl, Hackmyer & Tishelman for petitioner.
Jack M. Wolff for respondent.
to the extent that the person chargeable can afford, with due regard for his needs too. (
Domb v. Domb, 176 Misc. 409.) Subdivision (1) of section 92 of the Domestic Relations Court Act of the City of New York empowers this court "to order support of a wife or child, or both, irrespective of whether either is likely to become a public charge, as justice requires having due regard to the circumstances of the respective parties."
Margolies v. Margolies (277 App. Div. 1120) does not as a matter of law hold contrary to the determination in the case of
Manufacturers Trust Co. v. Gray (
supra). It appears to me that the court, in affirming a determination made by one of my esteemed colleagues, dismissing a petition by a wife for support from her spouse, had in mind subdivision 1 of section 92 hereinabove set forth. The evidence in the case shows that the respondent at the time of the hearing was unemployed. The petitioner at the time was also unemployed, but received $26 weekly unemployment insurance. Due regard for the circumstances of the parties before me, so that justice may be done to both, does not permit an order to be made requiring the respondent to contribute at this time any support for the petitioner without prejudice to her right to make application hereafter for an order for her support. [*] The names as they appear, of the petitioner and respondent, are fictitious.