Dostanko v. Dostanko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dostanko v. Dostanko

57 A.D.2d 885, 394 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12111

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

DecidedMay 16, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 57 A.D.2d 885 (Dostanko v. Dostanko) 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

Dostanko v. Dostanko, 57 A.D.2d 885, 394 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12111 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 15, 1974, as granted the defendant’s motion to modify a prior judgment of divorce to the extent of reducing the alimony payments directed therein from $40 per week to $25 per week. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and action remanded to Special Term for a hearing in accordance herewith. Defendant-respondent moved for a downward modification of the matrimonial allowances contained in the judgment of divorce on the ground of a substantial change of circumstances due to his decreased ability to pay. The record before the court is replete with numerous conflicting statements and contrasting data with respect to the income of both parties, the expenses of both parties, and their assets. Under the circumstances, Special Term acted improvidently in failing to direct a hearing to determine the current financial situation of the parties (see Sarnicola v Sarnicola, 50 AD2d 842; Espejo v Espejo, 41 AD2d 555). Hopkins, J. P., Margett, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action, plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 15, 1974, as granted the defendant’s motion to modify a prior judgment of divorce to the extent of reducing the alimony payments directed therein from $40 per week to $25 per week. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and action remanded to Special Term for a hearing in accordance herewith. Defendant-respondent moved for a downward modification of the matrimonial allowances contained in the judgment of divorce on the ground of a substantial change of circumstances due to his decreased ability to pay. The record before the court is replete with numerous conflicting statements and contrasting data with respect to the income of both parties, the expenses of both parties, and their assets. Under the circumstances, Special Term acted improvidently in failing to direct a hearing to determine the current financial situation of the parties (see Sarnicola v Sarnicola, 50 AD2d 842; Espejo v Espejo, 41 AD2d 555). Hopkins, J. P., Margett, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 885, 394 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dostanko-v-dostanko-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack