Clark v. Clark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clark v. Clark

280 A.D.2d 575, 720 N.Y.S.2d 796, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1676

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 20, 2001·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated January 14, 1981, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), entered May 3, 2000, which denied his motion to terminate his obligation to pay alimony.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[576] Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (9) (b) authorizes the modification of the terms of a separation agreement, such as the one at issue, which was incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce upon a showing of extreme hardship (see, Mishrick v Mishrick, 251 AD2d 558; Luftig v Luftig, 239 AD2d 225; Sheridan v Sheridan, 225 AD2d 604; cf., Streit v Streit, 237 AD2d 662). The defendant failed to meet this burden. We reject the defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court should have conducted a hearing on his motion (see, Mishrick v Mishrick, supra). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and Smith, 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 a judgment dated January 14, 1981, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), entered May 3, 2000, which denied his motion to terminate his obligation to pay alimony.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[576] Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (9) (b) authorizes the modification of the terms of a separation agreement, such as the one at issue, which was incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce upon a showing of extreme hardship (see, Mishrick v Mishrick, 251 AD2d 558; Luftig v Luftig, 239 AD2d 225; Sheridan v Sheridan, 225 AD2d 604; cf., Streit v Streit, 237 AD2d 662). The defendant failed to meet this burden. We reject the defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court should have conducted a hearing on his motion (see, Mishrick v Mishrick, supra). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Clark v. Clark, 280 A.D.2d 575, 720 N.Y.S.2d 796, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1676 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

280 A.D.2d 575 (Clark v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related