Matter of Richard K. v. Deborah K.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Richard K. v. Deborah K.

2017 NY Slip Op 7173, 154 A.D.3d 489, 61 N.Y.S.3d 483

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

DecidedOctober 12, 2017

Docket4640

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7173 (Matter of Richard K. v. Deborah K.) 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

Matter of Richard K. v. Deborah K., 2017 NY Slip Op 7173, 154 A.D.3d 489, 61 N.Y.S.3d 483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about July 6, 2016, which denied petitioner’s objections to a Support Magistrate’s order dismissing, after a hearing, his petition for a downward modification of his child and spousal support obligations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in determining that petitioner failed to show a substantial change in circumstances to warrant a downward modification of his child support obligation after he was convicted of a federal crime and disbarred (see Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 213 [1977]; Matter of Karagiannis v Karagiannis, 73 AD3d 1064, 1065 [2d Dept 2010]). That his income was reduced due to his incarceration was but one factor that the court, in its discretion, could consider (see Family Ct Act § 451 [3] [a]). The court also properly considered petitioner’s credibility with respect to the income shown on his tax returns and his overall financial situation.

Petitioner further failed to demonstrate the extreme hardship necessary to obtain modification of the maintenance obligations contained in the parties’ stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into the parties’ divorce judgment (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Matter of Cohen v Seletsky, 142 AD2d 111, 118-119 [2d Dept 1988]). A husband’s volitional actions which result in his unemployment, including incarceration preventing any employment, do not constitute such extreme hardship (see Fabrikant v Fabrikant, 62 AD3d 585, 586 [1st Dept 2009]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Singh and Moulton, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about July 6, 2016, which denied petitioner’s objections to a Support Magistrate’s order dismissing, after a hearing, his petition for a downward modification of his child and spousal support obligations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in determining that petitioner failed to show a substantial change in circumstances to warrant a downward modification of his child support obligation after he was convicted of a federal crime and disbarred (see Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 213 [1977]; Matter of Karagiannis v Karagiannis, 73 AD3d 1064, 1065 [2d Dept 2010]). That his income was reduced due to his incarceration was but one factor that the court, in its discretion, could consider (see Family Ct Act § 451 [3] [a]). The court also properly considered petitioner’s credibility with respect to the income shown on his tax returns and his overall financial situation.

Petitioner further failed to demonstrate the extreme hardship necessary to obtain modification of the maintenance obligations contained in the parties’ stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into the parties’ divorce judgment (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Matter of Cohen v Seletsky, 142 AD2d 111, 118-119 [2d Dept 1988]). A husband’s volitional actions which result in his unemployment, including incarceration preventing any employment, do not constitute such extreme hardship (see Fabrikant v Fabrikant, 62 AD3d 585, 586 [1st Dept 2009]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Singh and Moulton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 7173, 154 A.D.3d 489, 61 N.Y.S.3d 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-richard-k-v-deborah-k-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack