Cattano v. Cattano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cattano v. Cattano

221 A.D.2d 172, 633 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10707

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 172 (Cattano v. Cattano) 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

Cattano v. Cattano, 221 A.D.2d 172, 633 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10707 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered June 20, 1994, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a money judgment for arrears in maintenance, and denied defendant’s cross motion for, inter alia, a downward modification of maintenance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s loss of his job and consequent need to pay for medical insurance himself are circumstances that were considered in prior, unappealed orders, and, as such, should not have been raised again and did not warrant a hearing (cf., Baynon v Baynon, 133 AD2d 387). Defendant’s belief that these [173]*173prior orders were in error is hardly good cause for his unilateral decision to suspend his court-ordered maintenance (see, Vogel v Vogel, 156 AD2d 671, 675). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered June 20, 1994, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a money judgment for arrears in maintenance, and denied defendant’s cross motion for, inter alia, a downward modification of maintenance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s loss of his job and consequent need to pay for medical insurance himself are circumstances that were considered in prior, unappealed orders, and, as such, should not have been raised again and did not warrant a hearing (cf., Baynon v Baynon, 133 AD2d 387). Defendant’s belief that these [173]*173prior orders were in error is hardly good cause for his unilateral decision to suspend his court-ordered maintenance (see, Vogel v Vogel, 156 AD2d 671, 675). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 172, 633 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cattano-v-cattano-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack