McCarthy v. McCarthy

214 A.D.2d 1000, 627 N.Y.S.2d 502
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 28, 1995
DocketAppeal No. 1
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 1000 (McCarthy v. McCarthy) 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
McCarthy v. McCarthy, 214 A.D.2d 1000, 627 N.Y.S.2d 502 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for a termination or downward modification of alimony without conducting a hearing. The parties entered into an oral stipulation awarding plaintiff unallocated alimony and child support of $130 per week and providing that such award would terminate only upon plaintiff’s death, remarriage, or cohabitation with an unrelated male. That stipulation merged into the pre-equitable distribution judgment of divorce.

The party seeking a reduction in alimony must present evidence that there has been a substantial change in financial circumstances between the time of entry of the judgment of divorce and the time of the application for modification (see, [1001]*1001Cooper v Cooper, 179 AD2d 1035, 1036; Shipley v Shipley, 55 AD2d 577, 578). Defendant failed to submit that evidence. The emancipation of the parties’ children is not an unforeseen event that automatically requires modification of that portion of a judgment of divorce awarding unallocated alimony and child support (see, Matter of Hermans v Hermans, 74 NY2d 876; Brody v Brody, 22 AD2d 646, affd 19 NY2d 790). Further, plaintiffs increase in income does not constitute a substantial change of circumstances, particularly where, as here, that increase is less than the increase in defendant’s income and less than the increase in the rate of inflation (see, 2 Foster, Freed and Brandes, Law and the Family New York § 5:13 [2d ed]). Although defendant submitted evidence of his current financial circumstances, he failed to submit evidence of his relative income and expenses at the time of the divorce, and he failed to show that plaintiffs financial situation had changed substantially. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gorski, J.—Terminate Alimony.) Present—Fallon, J. P., Wesley, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Related

Reynhout v. Hueston
70 A.D.3d 1409 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Leroy v. Leroy
298 A.D.2d 923 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Duerr v. Cuenin
280 A.D.2d 903 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Block v. Block
277 A.D.2d 87 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Wells v. Wells
242 A.D.2d 934 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Streit v. Streit
237 A.D.2d 662 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Wheeler v. Wheeler
230 A.D.2d 844 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
214 A.D.2d 1000, 627 N.Y.S.2d 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccarthy-v-mccarthy-nyappdiv-1995.