Crane v. Crane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crane v. Crane

144 A.D.2d 933, 534 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14394

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 144 A.D.2d 933 (Crane v. Crane) 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

Crane v. Crane, 144 A.D.2d 933, 534 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14394 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, and matter remitted to Su[934]*934preme Court, Oneida County, for a hearing, in accordance with the following memorandum: The court erred in denying defendant’s application for a modification of a 1976 judgment of divorce without a hearing on his claim of a substantial change in plaintiff’s financial circumstances. Defendant, by his affidavit, made the requisite showing of a possible change of circumstances (see, Levinson v Levinson, 97 AD2d 458, 460; Matter of Hazell v Hazell, 66 AD2d 986, lv dismissed 46 NY2d 710; Hickland v Hickland, 56 AD2d 978). Plaintiff submitted neither anaffidavit nor a financial statement (see, Levinson v Levinson, supra, at 460).

Although the court unquestionably has the statutory authority to modify the judgment of divorce, it is powerless to change the parties’ separation agreement, which survives the judgment and remains unimpeached (Domestic Relations Law § 236 (A); Goldman v Goldman, 282 NY 296). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J. — terminate maintenance.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, and matter remitted to Su[934]*934preme Court, Oneida County, for a hearing, in accordance with the following memorandum: The court erred in denying defendant’s application for a modification of a 1976 judgment of divorce without a hearing on his claim of a substantial change in plaintiff’s financial circumstances. Defendant, by his affidavit, made the requisite showing of a possible change of circumstances (see, Levinson v Levinson, 97 AD2d 458, 460; Matter of Hazell v Hazell, 66 AD2d 986, lv dismissed 46 NY2d 710; Hickland v Hickland, 56 AD2d 978). Plaintiff submitted neither anaffidavit nor a financial statement (see, Levinson v Levinson, supra, at 460).

Although the court unquestionably has the statutory authority to modify the judgment of divorce, it is powerless to change the parties’ separation agreement, which survives the judgment and remains unimpeached (Domestic Relations Law § 236 (A); Goldman v Goldman, 282 NY 296). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J. — terminate maintenance.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 A.D.2d 933, 534 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crane-v-crane-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack