Brotherton v. Brotherton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brotherton v. Brotherton

73 A.D.2d 1062, 425 N.Y.S.2d 405, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10038

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 73 A.D.2d 1062 (Brotherton v. Brotherton) 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

Brotherton v. Brotherton, 73 A.D.2d 1062, 425 N.Y.S.2d 405, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10038 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The petition in this proceeding (Family Ct Act, § 461) failed to allege any change in the circujpstances of the child or father sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing to determine whether modification of the child support provision of the divorce judgment was warranted (Tarr v Tarr, 70 AD2d 504; Huber v Huber, 59 AD2d 1063). There is no claim that the child’s inability to function within the public school system necessitated her enrollment in a private school (Matter of Monesi v Monesi, 55 AD2d 1020). Further, the mere fact that the child has grown older does not serve as a basis for increased support absent any other showing (Roller v Roller, 64 AD2d 854, 855). Our affirmance is without prejudice, however, to a renewal of the application in Family Court on an appropriate showing, if appellant be so advised. (Appeal from order of Jefferson Deceased. Family Court — modify divorce judgment.) Present — Simons, J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Doerr and Moule, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The petition in this proceeding (Family Ct Act, § 461) failed to allege any change in the circujpstances of the child or father sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing to determine whether modification of the child support provision of the divorce judgment was warranted (Tarr v Tarr, 70 AD2d 504; Huber v Huber, 59 AD2d 1063). There is no claim that the child’s inability to function within the public school system necessitated her enrollment in a private school (Matter of Monesi v Monesi, 55 AD2d 1020). Further, the mere fact that the child has grown older does not serve as a basis for increased support absent any other showing (Roller v Roller, 64 AD2d 854, 855). Our affirmance is without prejudice, however, to a renewal of the application in Family Court on an appropriate showing, if appellant be so advised. (Appeal from order of Jefferson Deceased. Family Court — modify divorce judgment.) Present — Simons, J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Doerr and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.2d 1062, 425 N.Y.S.2d 405, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brotherton-v-brotherton-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack