Clemente v. Clemente

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clemente v. Clemente

186 A.D.2d 620, 589 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11297

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

DecidedOctober 13, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 620 (Clemente v. Clemente) 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

Clemente v. Clemente, 186 A.D.2d 620, 589 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11297 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant-husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), dated August 10, 1990, as denied his application for a downward modification of a pendente lite award of child support and maintenance.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a downward modification of pendente lite child support and maintenance (see, Katzenberg v Katzenberg, 166 AD2d 417, 418; Farinon v Farinon, 149 AD2d 655; Isham v Isham, 123 AD2d 742; see also, Brancoveanu v Brancoveanu, 177 AD2d 614). The record demonstrates that the defendant failed to establish a substantial change in circumstances warranting a downward modification (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Brancoveanu v Brancoveanu, supra; Scagnelli v Scagnelli, 127 AD2d 754; Lopez v Lopez, 121 AD2d 515; Ruffolo v Ruffolo, 114 AD2d 843). Moreover, upon our review of the record, we find that the court’s award properly weighed the parties’ respective finances and the plaintiff wife’s need for maintenance pending trial (Tillinger v Tillinger, 141 AD2d 535; Isham v Isham, supra).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant-husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), dated August 10, 1990, as denied his application for a downward modification of a pendente lite award of child support and maintenance.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a downward modification of pendente lite child support and maintenance (see, Katzenberg v Katzenberg, 166 AD2d 417, 418; Farinon v Farinon, 149 AD2d 655; Isham v Isham, 123 AD2d 742; see also, Brancoveanu v Brancoveanu, 177 AD2d 614). The record demonstrates that the defendant failed to establish a substantial change in circumstances warranting a downward modification (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Brancoveanu v Brancoveanu, supra; Scagnelli v Scagnelli, 127 AD2d 754; Lopez v Lopez, 121 AD2d 515; Ruffolo v Ruffolo, 114 AD2d 843). Moreover, upon our review of the record, we find that the court’s award properly weighed the parties’ respective finances and the plaintiff wife’s need for maintenance pending trial (Tillinger v Tillinger, 141 AD2d 535; Isham v Isham, supra).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 620, 589 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clemente-v-clemente-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack