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

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 15 A.D.3d 442 (Gross v. Gross) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 442, 789 N.Y.S.2d 447, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gross-v-gross-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack