Lipow v. Lipow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lipow v. Lipow

110 A.D.2d 756, 488 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48656

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

DecidedApril 15, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 756 (Lipow v. Lipow) 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

Lipow v. Lipow, 110 A.D.2d 756, 488 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In order to obtain a reduction or elimination of the support and other financial provisions of the divorce judgment, the plaintiff had the burden of showing a substantial change in circumstances (see, Patell v Patell, 91 AD2d 1028; Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Hickland v Hickland, 56 AD2d 978). The plaintiff, who had been forced to retire from a lucrative dental practice due to a neurological disability, testified that he was employed full time teaching library skills to elementary school children at a salary of approximately $7,800 per year at the time of the hearing at Special Term. Our review of the record indicates that the plaintiff was capable of earning a substantially higher income (see, Hickland v Hickland, 39 NY2d 1, cert denied 429 US 941). Indeed, Special Term rejected the plaintiff’s evidence as to his earnings, and other evidence adduced by the plaintiff as to his over-all financial condition, as “unbelievable”.

The only change in circumstances proven by the plaintiff was that the defendant wife had become employed. Since “the ability to be self-supporting is one of many factors to be considered by the court in awarding alimony” (McClusky v McClusky, 87 AD2d 973; see, Hickland v Hickland, 39 NY2d 1, cert denied 429 US 941, supra; Kover v Kover, 29 NY2d 408), Special Term properly modified the plaintiff’s support and other financial obligations pursuant to the judgment of divorce only by reducing the plaintiff’s alimony obligation by $4,500 per year.

We find no merit in the other contentions raised by the plaintiff. Titone, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

In order to obtain a reduction or elimination of the support and other financial provisions of the divorce judgment, the plaintiff had the burden of showing a substantial change in circumstances (see, Patell v Patell, 91 AD2d 1028; Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Hickland v Hickland, 56 AD2d 978). The plaintiff, who had been forced to retire from a lucrative dental practice due to a neurological disability, testified that he was employed full time teaching library skills to elementary school children at a salary of approximately $7,800 per year at the time of the hearing at Special Term. Our review of the record indicates that the plaintiff was capable of earning a substantially higher income (see, Hickland v Hickland, 39 NY2d 1, cert denied 429 US 941). Indeed, Special Term rejected the plaintiff’s evidence as to his earnings, and other evidence adduced by the plaintiff as to his over-all financial condition, as “unbelievable”.

The only change in circumstances proven by the plaintiff was that the defendant wife had become employed. Since “the ability to be self-supporting is one of many factors to be considered by the court in awarding alimony” (McClusky v McClusky, 87 AD2d 973; see, Hickland v Hickland, 39 NY2d 1, cert denied 429 US 941, supra; Kover v Kover, 29 NY2d 408), Special Term properly modified the plaintiff’s support and other financial obligations pursuant to the judgment of divorce only by reducing the plaintiff’s alimony obligation by $4,500 per year.

We find no merit in the other contentions raised by the plaintiff. Titone, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 756, 488 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lipow-v-lipow-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack