Gordon v. Gordon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gordon v. Gordon

82 A.D.3d 509, 918 N.Y.2d 343

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

DecidedMarch 10, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 509 (Gordon v. Gordon) 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

Gordon v. Gordon, 82 A.D.3d 509, 918 N.Y.2d 343 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant demonstrated neither extreme hardship to warrant a downward modification of his maintenance obligations (see Sheila C. v Donald C., 5 AD3d 123 [2004]; Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b] [1]), nor a substantial, unanticipated and unreasonable change in his circumstances necessitating a reduction in child support (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b] [2] [i]; Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 212-213 [1977]). The motion court’s skepticism of defendant’s statements reflect the gaps in his evidence, rather than any bias against him. Furthermore, contrary to defendant’s contention, a hearing on the motion was not required in light of his inability to raise a genuine question of fact (see Young v Young, 223 AD2d 358 [1996]). Concur — Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

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

Defendant demonstrated neither extreme hardship to warrant a downward modification of his maintenance obligations (see Sheila C. v Donald C., 5 AD3d 123 [2004]; Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b] [1]), nor a substantial, unanticipated and unreasonable change in his circumstances necessitating a reduction in child support (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b] [2] [i]; Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 212-213 [1977]). The motion court’s skepticism of defendant’s statements reflect the gaps in his evidence, rather than any bias against him. Furthermore, contrary to defendant’s contention, a hearing on the motion was not required in light of his inability to raise a genuine question of fact (see Young v Young, 223 AD2d 358 [1996]). Concur — Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 509, 918 N.Y.2d 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-gordon-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack