Ciolino v. Ciolino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ciolino v. Ciolino

186 A.D.2d 1077, 590 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11752

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 1077 (Ciolino v. Ciolino) 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

Ciolino v. Ciolino, 186 A.D.2d 1077, 590 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendant failed to demonstrate that there has been a material change in her ability [1078]*1078to be financially self-supporting since her divorce. Because the material facts regarding defendant’s ability to be self-supporting were not disputed, Supreme Court did not err in denying, without a hearing, defendant’s motion for a modification of the spousal maintenance portion of the judgment of divorce (see, Hofmeister v Hofmeister, 120 AD2d 802; cf., De Paolo v De Paolo, 104 AD2d 631). We further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding counsel fees to defendant. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J. — Maintenance.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendant failed to demonstrate that there has been a material change in her ability [1078]*1078to be financially self-supporting since her divorce. Because the material facts regarding defendant’s ability to be self-supporting were not disputed, Supreme Court did not err in denying, without a hearing, defendant’s motion for a modification of the spousal maintenance portion of the judgment of divorce (see, Hofmeister v Hofmeister, 120 AD2d 802; cf., De Paolo v De Paolo, 104 AD2d 631). We further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding counsel fees to defendant. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J. — Maintenance.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 1077, 590 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ciolino-v-ciolino-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack