Rabinovich v. Shevchenko

120 A.D.3d 786, 991 N.Y.S.2d 345
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 27, 2014
Docket2013-01184
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 120 A.D.3d 786 (Rabinovich v. Shevchenko) 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
Rabinovich v. Shevchenko, 120 A.D.3d 786, 991 N.Y.S.2d 345 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment of divorce dated June 23, 2011, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), dated December 3, 2012, which denied, without a hearing, his motion for a downward modification of his obligation to pay the defendant lifetime maintenance in the sum of $5,000 per month.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (9) (b) provides that, in a matrimonial action, the court may modify the maintenance award of any prior order or judgment upon a showing of “a substantial change in circumstance . . . including financial hardship.” The party seeking the modification of a maintenance award has the burden of establishing the existence of the change in circumstances that warrants the modification (see Taylor v Taylor, 107 AD3d 785, 786 [2013]; Matter of Sannuto v Sannuto, 21 AD3d 901, 902 [2005]), and the change is to be measured by a comparison between the payor’s financial circumstances at the time of the motion and at the time the order of which modification is sought was made (see Taylor v Taylor, 107 AD3d at 786). Here, the Supreme Court did not err in denying, without a hearing, the plaintiff’s motion for a downward modification of the maintenance obligation because the plaintiff failed to make even a threshold showing of a substantial change in circumstances that would warrant such a modification (see Wight v Wight, 232 AD2d 844, 845 [1996]; Martin v Martin, 194 AD2d 769 [1993]).

Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Valvo v. Valvo
2023 NY Slip Op 03746 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Gahagan v. Gahagan
2019 NY Slip Op 3768 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Connor v. Connor
2019 NY Slip Op 2520 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Rabinovich v. Shevchenko
2018 NY Slip Op 1493 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Noren v. Babus
2016 NY Slip Op 7301 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Raab v. Raab
129 A.D.3d 1050 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Sanseri v. Sanseri
48 Misc. 3d 706 (New York Supreme Court, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 A.D.3d 786, 991 N.Y.S.2d 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rabinovich-v-shevchenko-nyappdiv-2014.