Gross v. Gross

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gross v. Gross

15 A.D.3d 442, 789 N.Y.S.2d 447, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1644

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 14, 2005·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated December 20, 2001, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Spolzino, J.), entered June 10, 2003, as, upon the denial of his motions for a downward modification of his child support obligations, is in favor of the defendant and against him in the principal sum of $58,969.10.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“Absent a showing of an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances, the support provisions of the agreement should not be disturbed” (Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 213 [1977]). Moreover, where the application is one for downward modification of child support, such a change in circumstances must be substantial (see Beard v Beard, 300 AD2d 268 [2002]). Here, the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of such a change. Therefore, the denial of his motions without first conducting hearings was proper (see Roshevsky v Roshevsky, 267 AD2d 293, 294 [1999]; Mitchell v Mitchell, 170 AD2d 585 [1991]; Nordhauser v Nordhauser, 130 AD2d 561, 562 [1987]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.E, Luciano, Rivera and Lifson, 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 December 20, 2001, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Spolzino, J.), entered June 10, 2003, as, upon the denial of his motions for a downward modification of his child support obligations, is in favor of the defendant and against him in the principal sum of $58,969.10.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“Absent a showing of an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances, the support provisions of the agreement should not be disturbed” (Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 213 [1977]). Moreover, where the application is one for downward modification of child support, such a change in circumstances must be substantial (see Beard v Beard, 300 AD2d 268 [2002]). Here, the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of such a change. Therefore, the denial of his motions without first conducting hearings was proper (see Roshevsky v Roshevsky, 267 AD2d 293, 294 [1999]; Mitchell v Mitchell, 170 AD2d 585 [1991]; Nordhauser v Nordhauser, 130 AD2d 561, 562 [1987]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.E, Luciano, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Gross v. Gross, 15 A.D.3d 442, 789 N.Y.S.2d 447, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

15 A.D.3d 442 (Gross v. Gross) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related