Alheit v. Alheit

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alheit v. Alheit

114 A.D.2d 920, 495 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53965

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 114 A.D.2d 920 (Alheit v. Alheit) 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

Alheit v. Alheit, 114 A.D.2d 920, 495 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53965 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, in which the plaintiff wife moved, inter alia, for increased child support, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Geiler, J.), dated August 20, 1984, which denied her application.

Order affirmed, with costs.

In asserting her interest in having defendant contribute more to the financial burden of raising their daughter, plaintiff has failed to show an unreasonable or unanticipated change in circumstances since the daughter’s college education was considered and provided for in the second modification to the separation agreement (see, Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210). Both parties earn substantially the same incomes and plaintiff has failed to make an adequate showing of increased needs of the child (see, Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132).

Plaintiff’s other contentions have been considered and found to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action, in which the plaintiff wife moved, inter alia, for increased child support, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Geiler, J.), dated August 20, 1984, which denied her application.

Order affirmed, with costs.

In asserting her interest in having defendant contribute more to the financial burden of raising their daughter, plaintiff has failed to show an unreasonable or unanticipated change in circumstances since the daughter’s college education was considered and provided for in the second modification to the separation agreement (see, Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210). Both parties earn substantially the same incomes and plaintiff has failed to make an adequate showing of increased needs of the child (see, Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132).

Plaintiff’s other contentions have been considered and found to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 920, 495 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alheit-v-alheit-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack