Pfeiffer v. Cinelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pfeiffer v. Cinelli

174 A.D.2d 1001

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

DecidedJune 7, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 174 A.D.2d 1001 (Pfeiffer v. Cinelli) 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

Pfeiffer v. Cinelli, 174 A.D.2d 1001 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition denied. Memorandum: Family Court erred

in granting the petition for an upward modification of child support. The parties’ separation agreement provided that the amount of child support was based on the parties’ income at the "time of the divorce”. The only direct evidence of respondent’s income at the time of the divorce was his statement that he was earning $40,000 per year. That statement was supported by his 1988 tax return. When petitioner commenced this proceeding some 18 months later, respondent was still earning approximately $40,000 per year. Given those circumstances, petitioner’s proof failed to establish an unanticipated and unreasonable change of circumstances to support an upward modification of child support (see, Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 213). (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, O’Donnell, J.—Support.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition denied. Memorandum: Family Court erred

in granting the petition for an upward modification of child support. The parties’ separation agreement provided that the amount of child support was based on the parties’ income at the "time of the divorce”. The only direct evidence of respondent’s income at the time of the divorce was his statement that he was earning $40,000 per year. That statement was supported by his 1988 tax return. When petitioner commenced this proceeding some 18 months later, respondent was still earning approximately $40,000 per year. Given those circumstances, petitioner’s proof failed to establish an unanticipated and unreasonable change of circumstances to support an upward modification of child support (see, Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 213). (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, O’Donnell, J.—Support.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D.2d 1001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pfeiffer-v-cinelli-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack