Annis v. Annis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Annis v. Annis

297 A.D.2d 378, 746 N.Y.2d 602, 746 N.Y.S.2d 602, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8146

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

DecidedAugust 26, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 297 A.D.2d 378 (Annis v. Annis) 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

Annis v. Annis, 297 A.D.2d 378, 746 N.Y.2d 602, 746 N.Y.S.2d 602, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

The Family Court had jurisdiction to decide the petitioner former husband’s application, as the final judgment of divorce provided for concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court on the issue of maintenance (see Family Ct Act § 466 [a], [c]; Matter of Leontitsis v Leontitsis, 128 AD2d 535). The Family Court properly found that the petitioner failed to establish his entitlement to modification of the maintenance provisions of the parties’ stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated [379]*379but not merged into their judgment of divorce. The petitioner failed to establish that continued enforcement of the maintenance obligation would result in “extreme hardship” (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Mishrick v Mishrick, 251 AD2d 558; Sheridan v Sheridan, 225 AD2d 604), and that his loss of income was unavoidable (see Saxton v Saxton, 163 AD2d 292). Smith, J.P., Friedmann, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

The Family Court had jurisdiction to decide the petitioner former husband’s application, as the final judgment of divorce provided for concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court on the issue of maintenance (see Family Ct Act § 466 [a], [c]; Matter of Leontitsis v Leontitsis, 128 AD2d 535). The Family Court properly found that the petitioner failed to establish his entitlement to modification of the maintenance provisions of the parties’ stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated [379]*379but not merged into their judgment of divorce. The petitioner failed to establish that continued enforcement of the maintenance obligation would result in “extreme hardship” (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Mishrick v Mishrick, 251 AD2d 558; Sheridan v Sheridan, 225 AD2d 604), and that his loss of income was unavoidable (see Saxton v Saxton, 163 AD2d 292). Smith, J.P., Friedmann, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 378, 746 N.Y.2d 602, 746 N.Y.S.2d 602, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/annis-v-annis-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack