Garfield v. Eckhaus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garfield v. Eckhaus

307 A.D.2d 308, 762 N.Y.S.2d 508

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

DecidedJuly 21, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 307 A.D.2d 308 (Garfield v. Eckhaus) 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

Garfield v. Eckhaus, 307 A.D.2d 308, 762 N.Y.S.2d 508 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated January 13, 1999, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Deutsch, J.H.O.), dated May 7, 2002, which, after a hearing, denied that branch of his motion which was, in effect, for a downward modification of his maintenance obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[309]*309The defendant sought to modify the maintenance provisions of a judgment of divorce in which the terms of a stipulation of settlement had been incorporated but not merged. The Judicial Hearing Officer properly found that the defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that the continued enforcement of the maintenance provision would create an “extreme hardship” (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; see Matter of Alice C. v Bernard G.C., 193 AD2d 97, 111 [1993]; Harkavy v Harkavy, 167 AD2d 510, 511 [1990]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, that branch of his motion which was, in effect, for a downward modification of his maintenance obligation was properly denied. Feuerstein, J.P., Friedmann, Luciano and Townes, 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 judgment dated January 13, 1999, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Deutsch, J.H.O.), dated May 7, 2002, which, after a hearing, denied that branch of his motion which was, in effect, for a downward modification of his maintenance obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[309]*309The defendant sought to modify the maintenance provisions of a judgment of divorce in which the terms of a stipulation of settlement had been incorporated but not merged. The Judicial Hearing Officer properly found that the defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that the continued enforcement of the maintenance provision would create an “extreme hardship” (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; see Matter of Alice C. v Bernard G.C., 193 AD2d 97, 111 [1993]; Harkavy v Harkavy, 167 AD2d 510, 511 [1990]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, that branch of his motion which was, in effect, for a downward modification of his maintenance obligation was properly denied. Feuerstein, J.P., Friedmann, Luciano and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 A.D.2d 308, 762 N.Y.S.2d 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garfield-v-eckhaus-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack