Balus v. Balus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Balus v. Balus

181 A.D.2d 1004, 581 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4596

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A.D.2d 1004 (Balus v. Balus) 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

Balus v. Balus, 181 A.D.2d 1004, 581 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4596 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff contends that Supreme Court erred in denying his application to modify the parties’ divorce decree to provide, in contravention of the parties’ separation agreement, for defendant’s payment of child support for the infant issue of the marriage. Although denominated a cross motion, plaintiff’s application was not supported by an affidavit. Even if the submission denominated an answer were considered, it failed to allege an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances (see, Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 213), or that the child’s needs and right to receive adequate support were not being met (see, Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132, 138-140; Michaels v Michaels, 56 NY2d 924, 926). Thus, we find no error in Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiff’s application. We further find no error in Supreme Court’s award of counsel fees because plaintiff failed to challenge that request. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J. — Child Support.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff contends that Supreme Court erred in denying his application to modify the parties’ divorce decree to provide, in contravention of the parties’ separation agreement, for defendant’s payment of child support for the infant issue of the marriage. Although denominated a cross motion, plaintiff’s application was not supported by an affidavit. Even if the submission denominated an answer were considered, it failed to allege an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances (see, Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 213), or that the child’s needs and right to receive adequate support were not being met (see, Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132, 138-140; Michaels v Michaels, 56 NY2d 924, 926). Thus, we find no error in Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiff’s application. We further find no error in Supreme Court’s award of counsel fees because plaintiff failed to challenge that request. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J. — Child Support.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 1004, 581 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balus-v-balus-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack