Boatman v. Boatman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boatman v. Boatman

113 A.D.3d 951, 979 N.Y.2d 186

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 113 A.D.3d 951 (Boatman v. Boatman) 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

Boatman v. Boatman, 113 A.D.3d 951, 979 N.Y.2d 186 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Lahtinen, J.

A maintenance obligation may be changed upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b] [1]; Friske v Johnson, 97 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2012]; Hall v Hall, 22 AD3d 979, 980 [2005]). Initially, we note that the record contains little information regarding the parties’ [952]*952financial circumstances at the time of the divorce judgment, leaving no base from which to measure a change to their current financial circumstances (see Matter of Grange v Grange, 78 AD3d 1253, 1255 [2010]; Cynoske v Cynoske, 8 AD3d 720, 722-723 [2004]). Petitioner, who was 67 years old at the time of the hearing, retired in 2011 and has a serious health problem which prevents him from seeking further employment. Nonetheless, the evidence reveals that his combined retirement and Social Security income is about $64,000 per year. In addition, he has a net worth of over $1,500,000, including in excess of $1,380,000 in stocks, annuities and other investments. He has no liabilities except for unpaid income taxes. Petitioner’s current wife is employed as a therapist at a hospital and he did not know how much she earned.

The proof regarding respondent, who was 69 years old at the time of the hearing, established that she also had a health problem that kept her out of work from her part-time job, where she earned approximately $12,000 annually. Her Social Security totaled about $12,700 per year. There was no proof that she had other assets available as a source of income. She lives with her adult son who is a college student and does not contribute to the household finances. Upon review of the record, we find no error in the determination that petitioner failed to show a substantial change in circumstances meriting a reduction in the maintenance payment.

Rose, J.P., McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

Lahtinen, J.

A maintenance obligation may be changed upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b] [1]; Friske v Johnson, 97 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2012]; Hall v Hall, 22 AD3d 979, 980 [2005]). Initially, we note that the record contains little information regarding the parties’ [952]*952financial circumstances at the time of the divorce judgment, leaving no base from which to measure a change to their current financial circumstances (see Matter of Grange v Grange, 78 AD3d 1253, 1255 [2010]; Cynoske v Cynoske, 8 AD3d 720, 722-723 [2004]). Petitioner, who was 67 years old at the time of the hearing, retired in 2011 and has a serious health problem which prevents him from seeking further employment. Nonetheless, the evidence reveals that his combined retirement and Social Security income is about $64,000 per year. In addition, he has a net worth of over $1,500,000, including in excess of $1,380,000 in stocks, annuities and other investments. He has no liabilities except for unpaid income taxes. Petitioner’s current wife is employed as a therapist at a hospital and he did not know how much she earned.

The proof regarding respondent, who was 69 years old at the time of the hearing, established that she also had a health problem that kept her out of work from her part-time job, where she earned approximately $12,000 annually. Her Social Security totaled about $12,700 per year. There was no proof that she had other assets available as a source of income. She lives with her adult son who is a college student and does not contribute to the household finances. Upon review of the record, we find no error in the determination that petitioner failed to show a substantial change in circumstances meriting a reduction in the maintenance payment.

Rose, J.P., McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.3d 951, 979 N.Y.2d 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boatman-v-boatman-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack