Meyrowitz v. Meyrowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meyrowitz v. Meyrowitz

34 A.D.2d 965, 312 N.Y.S.2d 426, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4587

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

DecidedJune 8, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 34 A.D.2d 965 (Meyrowitz v. Meyrowitz) 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

Meyrowitz v. Meyrowitz, 34 A.D.2d 965, 312 N.Y.S.2d 426, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

In consolidated proceedings, one to enforce the support provisions of a Mexican divorce decree which incorporated a separation agreement, and one to reduce said support provisions, the parties cross-appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated September 15, 1969 and made after a hearing, as reduced the amount of the support provisions (for the former wife and the parties’ three infant children) from the total of $8,000 per year ($666.66 per month) to $550 per month as of May 15, 1969. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by adding thereto a provision that the obligation of respondent-appellant, Philip Meyrowitz, to pay $666.66 per month for the [966]*966support and maintenance of appellant-respondent, Natalie Meyrowitz, and the parties’ three children, is reinstated, as of the date of the order to he made hereon. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable to appellant-respondent. In our opinion respondent-appellant did not demonstrate such a change in circumstances as would entitle him to a downward modification of the amount previously fixed for maintenance and support payments. The record establishes that his net income is substantially higher than that found by the Trial Judge. Further, there was no showing that his position has changed adversely for reasons beyond his control (see Presberg v. Presberg, 285 App. Div. 1134). Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In consolidated proceedings, one to enforce the support provisions of a Mexican divorce decree which incorporated a separation agreement, and one to reduce said support provisions, the parties cross-appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated September 15, 1969 and made after a hearing, as reduced the amount of the support provisions (for the former wife and the parties’ three infant children) from the total of $8,000 per year ($666.66 per month) to $550 per month as of May 15, 1969. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by adding thereto a provision that the obligation of respondent-appellant, Philip Meyrowitz, to pay $666.66 per month for the [966]*966support and maintenance of appellant-respondent, Natalie Meyrowitz, and the parties’ three children, is reinstated, as of the date of the order to he made hereon. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable to appellant-respondent. In our opinion respondent-appellant did not demonstrate such a change in circumstances as would entitle him to a downward modification of the amount previously fixed for maintenance and support payments. The record establishes that his net income is substantially higher than that found by the Trial Judge. Further, there was no showing that his position has changed adversely for reasons beyond his control (see Presberg v. Presberg, 285 App. Div. 1134). Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 965, 312 N.Y.S.2d 426, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyrowitz-v-meyrowitz-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack