Petzold v. Petzold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Petzold v. Petzold

259 A.D.2d 474, 684 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2030

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 474 (Petzold v. Petzold) 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

Petzold v. Petzold, 259 A.D.2d 474, 684 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2030 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated June 16, 1997, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J.), dated February 27, 1998, as denied that branch of his motion which sought a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a change of circumstances sufficient to entitle him to a downward modification of his child support obligation (see, Matter of Mendelson v Winter, 255 AD2d 327; see also, Hick-land v Hickland, 39 NY2d 1, cert denied 429 US 941; Matter of Ludwig v Peyóme, 195 AD2d 1020; Matter óf Moore v Moore, 115 AD2d 894). Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, 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 a judgment dated June 16, 1997, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J.), dated February 27, 1998, as denied that branch of his motion which sought a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a change of circumstances sufficient to entitle him to a downward modification of his child support obligation (see, Matter of Mendelson v Winter, 255 AD2d 327; see also, Hick-land v Hickland, 39 NY2d 1, cert denied 429 US 941; Matter of Ludwig v Peyóme, 195 AD2d 1020; Matter óf Moore v Moore, 115 AD2d 894). Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 474, 684 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petzold-v-petzold-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack