Burke v. Burke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burke v. Burke

265 A.D.2d 285, 696 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9634

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

DecidedOctober 4, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 285 (Burke v. Burke) 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

Burke v. Burke, 265 A.D.2d 285, 696 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated September 5, 1991, the former husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), dated June 29, 1998, which denied his motion to terminate his obligation to pay maintenance and for a downward modification of his obligation to pay child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly rejected the claim of the defendant former husband that a decline in the income of his business warranted the elimination of his maintenance obligation and a downward modification of his child support obligation (see, Matter of Dallin v Dallin, 250 AD2d 847). The defendant did not meet his burden of establishing a substantial change in circumstances (see, Klapper v Klapper, 204 AD2d 518). Notably, although he contended that the alleged decline in his income resulted from various health problems he had been experiencing, he failed to submit any evidence to substantiate the existence of the alleged medical conditions (see, Matter of Dallin v Dallin, supra). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Feuerstein, 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 parties were divorced by judgment dated September 5, 1991, the former husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), dated June 29, 1998, which denied his motion to terminate his obligation to pay maintenance and for a downward modification of his obligation to pay child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly rejected the claim of the defendant former husband that a decline in the income of his business warranted the elimination of his maintenance obligation and a downward modification of his child support obligation (see, Matter of Dallin v Dallin, 250 AD2d 847). The defendant did not meet his burden of establishing a substantial change in circumstances (see, Klapper v Klapper, 204 AD2d 518). Notably, although he contended that the alleged decline in his income resulted from various health problems he had been experiencing, he failed to submit any evidence to substantiate the existence of the alleged medical conditions (see, Matter of Dallin v Dallin, supra). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 285, 696 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burke-v-burke-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack