Martin v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martin v. Martin

194 A.D.2d 769, 599 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6723

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

DecidedJune 28, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 194 A.D.2d 769 (Martin v. Martin) 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

Martin v. Martin, 194 A.D.2d 769, 599 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6723 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered November 12, 1980, the former husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), entered June 3, 1991, which denied his motion for a downward modification of alimony.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the former husband’s contentions, neither the unsubstantiated allegations in his affidavit that there had been a substantial change in the former wife’s circumstances nor his claim that his voluntary retirement constituted such a change in his own circumstances demonstrated the need for a hearing (see, Gagliardi v Gagliardi, 18 AD2d 788). The former husband’s papers failed to make a sufficient showing of a substantial change in circumstances warranting elimination or reduction of the alimony award (see, Koch v Koch, 134 AD2d 574; Villano v Villano, 98 Misc 2d 774, 779).

It was not improper for the court to award the former wife counsel fees in the absence of a hearing under these circumstances, where her attorney clearly set forth in his affirmation his hourly rate and the number of hours which he expended representing the wife on the motion. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, 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 entered November 12, 1980, the former husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), entered June 3, 1991, which denied his motion for a downward modification of alimony.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the former husband’s contentions, neither the unsubstantiated allegations in his affidavit that there had been a substantial change in the former wife’s circumstances nor his claim that his voluntary retirement constituted such a change in his own circumstances demonstrated the need for a hearing (see, Gagliardi v Gagliardi, 18 AD2d 788). The former husband’s papers failed to make a sufficient showing of a substantial change in circumstances warranting elimination or reduction of the alimony award (see, Koch v Koch, 134 AD2d 574; Villano v Villano, 98 Misc 2d 774, 779).

It was not improper for the court to award the former wife counsel fees in the absence of a hearing under these circumstances, where her attorney clearly set forth in his affirmation his hourly rate and the number of hours which he expended representing the wife on the motion. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 769, 599 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-martin-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack