Able v. Able

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Able v. Able

245 A.D.2d 1026, 666 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13769

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 31, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 1026 (Able v. Able) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Able v. Able, 245 A.D.2d 1026, 666 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of plaintiff for a downward modification of his maintenance obligation from $625 to $500 per week. In determining whether there is a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to warrant downward modification, “the change is to be measured by a comparison between the payor’s financial circumstances at the time of the motion for downward modification and at the time of the divorce or, as the case may be, the time that the order of which modification is sought was made” (Klapper v Klapper, 204 AD2d 518, 519). Plaintiff failed to prove a reduction in his income from the time of the divorce to the date of his motion, and, thus, the court abused its discretion in granting the requested relief (see, Klapper v Klapper, supra, at 519; Schnoor v Schnoor, 189 AD2d 809, 810). The court, however, did not abuse its discretion in awarding defendant only a portion of her attorneys’ fees and costs expended in responding to plaintiff’s motion (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237 [b]; Rados v Rados, 133 AD2d 536; Bushorr v Bushorr, 129 AD2d 989; see generally, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J.—Maintenance.) Present—Pine, J. P., Law-ton, Hayes, Wisner and Fallon, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of plaintiff for a downward modification of his maintenance obligation from $625 to $500 per week. In determining whether there is a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to warrant downward modification, “the change is to be measured by a comparison between the payor’s financial circumstances at the time of the motion for downward modification and at the time of the divorce or, as the case may be, the time that the order of which modification is sought was made” (Klapper v Klapper, 204 AD2d 518, 519). Plaintiff failed to prove a reduction in his income from the time of the divorce to the date of his motion, and, thus, the court abused its discretion in granting the requested relief (see, Klapper v Klapper, supra, at 519; Schnoor v Schnoor, 189 AD2d 809, 810). The court, however, did not abuse its discretion in awarding defendant only a portion of her attorneys’ fees and costs expended in responding to plaintiff’s motion (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237 [b]; Rados v Rados, 133 AD2d 536; Bushorr v Bushorr, 129 AD2d 989; see generally, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J.—Maintenance.) Present—Pine, J. P., Law-ton, Hayes, Wisner and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 1026, 666 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/able-v-able-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack