Keller v. Keller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Keller v. Keller

233 A.D.2d 446, 650 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11935

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 233 A.D.2d 446 (Keller v. Keller) 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

Keller v. Keller, 233 A.D.2d 446, 650 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11935 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Greenbaum, J.), dated November 28, 1994, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Adams, H.E.), entered August 12, 1994, which, after a hearing, denied his petition for the elimination or downward modification of his alimony obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In order to establish entitlement to a modification of alimony, the movant must demonstrate that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred (see, e.g., Matter of Ross v Dittmar, 229 AD2d 396; Matter of Zaccagnino v Sisca, 223 AD2d 546; Vant v Vant, 161 AD2d 636). Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, we conclude that he failed to establish a substantial change in circumstances warranting an elimination or downward modification of his alimony obligation (see, e.g., Matter of Ross v Dittmar, supra; Matter of Zaccagnino v Sisca, supra; Vant v Vant, supra; Sofia v Sofia, 162 AD2d 594; Petraglia v Petraglia, 110 AD2d 760). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Greenbaum, J.), dated November 28, 1994, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Adams, H.E.), entered August 12, 1994, which, after a hearing, denied his petition for the elimination or downward modification of his alimony obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In order to establish entitlement to a modification of alimony, the movant must demonstrate that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred (see, e.g., Matter of Ross v Dittmar, 229 AD2d 396; Matter of Zaccagnino v Sisca, 223 AD2d 546; Vant v Vant, 161 AD2d 636). Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, we conclude that he failed to establish a substantial change in circumstances warranting an elimination or downward modification of his alimony obligation (see, e.g., Matter of Ross v Dittmar, supra; Matter of Zaccagnino v Sisca, supra; Vant v Vant, supra; Sofia v Sofia, 162 AD2d 594; Petraglia v Petraglia, 110 AD2d 760). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 446, 650 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keller-v-keller-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack