Moore v. Moore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moore v. Moore

118 A.D.2d 714, 500 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54573

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 118 A.D.2d 714 (Moore v. Moore) 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

Moore v. Moore, 118 A.D.2d 714, 500 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding for modification of a support order entered on consent under the Uniform Support of Dependents Law (Domestic Relations Law art 3-A), petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), dated June 21, 1984, which, after a hearing, granted respondent’s application to the extent of reducing his weekly support obligation from $75, as provided in an order of the Family Court dated April 5, 1983, to $50.

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, application denied, [715]*715and the support provisions of the order dated April 5, 1983 reinstated.

The Family Court erred in granting the respondent’s application for a downward modification in view of the failure of the record to reveal an unanticipated change in circumstances sufficient to excuse compliance with the terms of a consent order whose fairness, when it was entered into, was unquestioned (see, Matter of Lamaitis v Mitchell, 80 AD2d 715, 716). Moreover, although the petitioner was habitually living with another man, there was not one scintilla of proof that she, by word or conduct, held herself out as his wife (see, Northrup v Northrup, 43 NY2d 566; Smith v Smith, 88 AD2d 658; Miklowitz v Miklowitz, 79 AD2d 795, lv denied 53 NY2d 604; Chalom v Chalom, 70 AD2d 944, appeal dismissed 48 NY2d 654; West v West, 61 AD2d 841). Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Fiber, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding for modification of a support order entered on consent under the Uniform Support of Dependents Law (Domestic Relations Law art 3-A), petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), dated June 21, 1984, which, after a hearing, granted respondent’s application to the extent of reducing his weekly support obligation from $75, as provided in an order of the Family Court dated April 5, 1983, to $50.

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, application denied, [715]*715and the support provisions of the order dated April 5, 1983 reinstated.

The Family Court erred in granting the respondent’s application for a downward modification in view of the failure of the record to reveal an unanticipated change in circumstances sufficient to excuse compliance with the terms of a consent order whose fairness, when it was entered into, was unquestioned (see, Matter of Lamaitis v Mitchell, 80 AD2d 715, 716). Moreover, although the petitioner was habitually living with another man, there was not one scintilla of proof that she, by word or conduct, held herself out as his wife (see, Northrup v Northrup, 43 NY2d 566; Smith v Smith, 88 AD2d 658; Miklowitz v Miklowitz, 79 AD2d 795, lv denied 53 NY2d 604; Chalom v Chalom, 70 AD2d 944, appeal dismissed 48 NY2d 654; West v West, 61 AD2d 841). Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.2d 714, 500 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-moore-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack