Deanna (B.)J. v. Donald M.B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Deanna (B.)J. v. Donald M.B.

49 A.D.3d 1347, 852 N.Y.2d 925

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 21, 2008·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted that part of the cross motion of defendant seeking to be relieved of his maintenance obligation based upon his clear and convincing showing of a substantial change in circumstances (see McGuire v McGuire, 200 AD2d 825 [1994]; see also Sitler v Sitler, 266 AD2d 202 [1999]). The court abused its discretion, however, in granting that relief effective August 3, 2005 rather than May 22, 2006, the date of application therefor (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 215 AD2d 365, 367 [1995]). We therefore modify the order and judgment accordingly. Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Lunn, Fahey and Green, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted that part of the cross motion of defendant seeking to be relieved of his maintenance obligation based upon his clear and convincing showing of a substantial change in circumstances (see McGuire v McGuire, 200 AD2d 825 [1994]; see also Sitler v Sitler, 266 AD2d 202 [1999]). The court abused its discretion, however, in granting that relief effective August 3, 2005 rather than May 22, 2006, the date of application therefor (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 215 AD2d 365, 367 [1995]). We therefore modify the order and judgment accordingly. Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Lunn, Fahey and Green, JJ.

Deanna (B.)J. v. Donald M.B., 49 A.D.3d 1347, 852 N.Y.2d 925 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

49 A.D.3d 1347 (Deanna (B.)J. v. Donald M.B.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related