Lewin v. Frances

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lewin v. Frances

270 A.D.2d 89, 704 N.Y.S.2d 468, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2826

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

DecidedMarch 14, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 89 (Lewin v. Frances) 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

Lewin v. Frances, 270 A.D.2d 89, 704 N.Y.S.2d 468, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2826 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered on or about December 14, 1998, denying defendant’s motion for modification of provisions of the stipulation of settlement and ensuing judgment governing child visitation and granting plaintiffs cross motion for counsel fees, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to deny plaintiffs cross motion and remand the matter for a hearing on the issue of counsel fees, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff and defendant entered into a detailed stipulation of settlement affording defendant liberal visitation with his son. To obtain modification of this agreement, it was incumbent on defendant to show that there had been some material change in circumstances warranting such modification (see, Family Ct Act § 467 [b]; Matter of Brocher v Brocher, 213 AD2d 544, lv denied 86 NY2d 701). The changed circumstances cited by defendant in support of his motion did not suffice as grounds for the requested modification since they were changes that could have been anticipated and provided for in the stipulation of settlement or in the ensuing divorce judgment.

We modify only to the extent of vacating the grant of plaintiffs motion for counsel fees and remanding for an evidentiary hearing as to the merits of plaintiffs claim for such fees (see, Petek v Petek, 239 AD2d 327, 329). Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered on or about December 14, 1998, denying defendant’s motion for modification of provisions of the stipulation of settlement and ensuing judgment governing child visitation and granting plaintiffs cross motion for counsel fees, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to deny plaintiffs cross motion and remand the matter for a hearing on the issue of counsel fees, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff and defendant entered into a detailed stipulation of settlement affording defendant liberal visitation with his son. To obtain modification of this agreement, it was incumbent on defendant to show that there had been some material change in circumstances warranting such modification (see, Family Ct Act § 467 [b]; Matter of Brocher v Brocher, 213 AD2d 544, lv denied 86 NY2d 701). The changed circumstances cited by defendant in support of his motion did not suffice as grounds for the requested modification since they were changes that could have been anticipated and provided for in the stipulation of settlement or in the ensuing divorce judgment.

We modify only to the extent of vacating the grant of plaintiffs motion for counsel fees and remanding for an evidentiary hearing as to the merits of plaintiffs claim for such fees (see, Petek v Petek, 239 AD2d 327, 329). Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 89, 704 N.Y.S.2d 468, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewin-v-frances-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack