Gellman v. Gellman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gellman v. Gellman

280 A.D.2d 995, 720 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1080

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 995 (Gellman v. Gellman) 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

Gellman v. Gellman, 280 A.D.2d 995, 720 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1080 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In seeking modification of the alimony award in the divorce judgment, plaintiff bore the burden of making “a clear and convincing showing of a substantial change in circumstances” (Matter of Hermans v Hermans, 74 NY2d 876, 878). “Determining whether a substantial change has occurred and the extent of relief occasioned by such a change are matters addressed to the discretion of the court with each case turning on its particular facts” (Vant v Vant, 161 AD2d 636, 637; see, Matter of King v King, 193 AD2d 800, 801). Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s application for an upward modification of the alimony award. The record supports the findings of the court with respect to plaintiff’s income, available resources and reasonable expenses, and its conclusion that the facts do not warrant an upward modification of the alimony award in the parties’ divorce judgment. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, NeMoyer, J. — Matrimonial.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hayes, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In seeking modification of the alimony award in the divorce judgment, plaintiff bore the burden of making “a clear and convincing showing of a substantial change in circumstances” (Matter of Hermans v Hermans, 74 NY2d 876, 878). “Determining whether a substantial change has occurred and the extent of relief occasioned by such a change are matters addressed to the discretion of the court with each case turning on its particular facts” (Vant v Vant, 161 AD2d 636, 637; see, Matter of King v King, 193 AD2d 800, 801). Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s application for an upward modification of the alimony award. The record supports the findings of the court with respect to plaintiff’s income, available resources and reasonable expenses, and its conclusion that the facts do not warrant an upward modification of the alimony award in the parties’ divorce judgment. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, NeMoyer, J. — Matrimonial.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hayes, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 995, 720 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gellman-v-gellman-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack