Fairchild Sons, Inc. v. Diskin
Fairchild Sons, Inc. v. William J. Diskin
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
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 *496 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 App. Div. 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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.