CONSTANCE M. RUBIN, Respondent,
NORMAN RUBIN, Appellant.
Republished decision, May 18, 1954.
APPEAL from an order of the Domestic Relations Court of the City of New York, Family Court Division, Bronx County (FOGARTY, J.), entered December 10, 1953, which directed appellant husband to pay respondent, his wife, $25 a week commencing December 12, 1953.
Myron Holtzman of counsel (Benjamin L. Greene, attorney), for respondent.
Norman Rubin, appellant in person.
The respondent wife is a graduate nurse earning $65 a week in a dentist's office. The appellant husband is a lawyer admitted to the bar in 1951. The Domestic Relations Court has found that at the time of the trial in December, 1953, the husband's earnings were at the rate of about $70 a week.
An order was entered directing him to pay the wife $25 a week. The judicial redistribution of the income of the parties would mean, while their earnings remain at the present levels, that the wife would have $90 a week and the husband about half of that amount.
The marriage was contracted in March, 1953, and was ephemeral. The parties never resided together. The wife retained an apartment which she had shared with another woman before the marriage. The husband continued to live with his parents and stayed with the wife weekends. The marital relation continued
in this fashion a few months until May, 1953, when it terminated.
The parties assign its failure to differing causes. The husband and wife are of diverse religious faiths. The husband is a Jew; the wife a Catholic. The members of their respective families were not told of the marriage when it occurred. The wife testified their delay in living together was, in part, 'because of religion' and in part due to a desire to win the husband's mother to an acceptance of the marriage.
The record suggests the mother's strong opposition to it. Leaving the apartment in which she was living, the wife rented and furnished with her own money another apartment. The husband attributed the failure of the marriage to his opposition to incurring this expense. Whatever the deeper causes of the failure of the marriage may be, it is manifest that presently it is not succeeding. It is difficult to assess the blame.
The husband's legal work in 1953 was mainly as an employee for other lawyers. There is proof by his employers based upon actual records which seem reliable that at the beginning of 1953 he was receiving a salary of $35 a week and that in the fall he was receiving $50 a week. There were periods during the year in which he was not employed but he had some small additional income from personal legal work.
It seems probable that the court's finding of about $70 a week was somewhat higher than his actual earnings average for the whole year. On the other hand he bought a 1953 Chrysler automobile on installment credit and provided neither food nor shelter for his wife. He did, however, borrow money ...