Pozza v. Pozza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pozza v. Pozza

260 A.D.2d 360, 687 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3646

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

DecidedApril 5, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 360 (Pozza v. Pozza) 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

Pozza v. Pozza, 260 A.D.2d 360, 687 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3646 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered March 4, 1987, the plaintiff former wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered February 6, 1998, which, inter alia, granted the defendant former husband’s application for a downward modification of his maintenance obligation.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof which granted the defendant’s application for a downward modification of his maintenance obligation and substituting therefor a provision denying the application; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff.

The parties’ judgment of divorce incorporated by reference, but did not merge, a stipulation of settlement between the parties concerning, inter alia, the defendant’s maintenance obligation. The defendant, inter alia, sought to modify the judgment by reducing his maintenance obligation. However, in support of his application, the defendant failed to demonstrate that continued payment of the obligation would result in extreme hardship (see, Mishrick v Mishrick, 251 AD2d 558; Sheridan v Sheridan, 225 AD2d 604; Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]). Accordingly, such relief should have been denied.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 judgment entered March 4, 1987, the plaintiff former wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered February 6, 1998, which, inter alia, granted the defendant former husband’s application for a downward modification of his maintenance obligation.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof which granted the defendant’s application for a downward modification of his maintenance obligation and substituting therefor a provision denying the application; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff.

The parties’ judgment of divorce incorporated by reference, but did not merge, a stipulation of settlement between the parties concerning, inter alia, the defendant’s maintenance obligation. The defendant, inter alia, sought to modify the judgment by reducing his maintenance obligation. However, in support of his application, the defendant failed to demonstrate that continued payment of the obligation would result in extreme hardship (see, Mishrick v Mishrick, 251 AD2d 558; Sheridan v Sheridan, 225 AD2d 604; Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]). Accordingly, such relief should have been denied.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 360, 687 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pozza-v-pozza-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack