Raich v. Raich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Raich v. Raich

34 A.D.3d 776, 823 N.Y.S.2d 903

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

DecidedNovember 28, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.3d 776 (Raich v. Raich) 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

Raich v. Raich, 34 A.D.3d 776, 823 N.Y.S.2d 903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered August 25, 2005 the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Balkin, J.), dated May 10, 2006, which, without a hearing, denied his motion, inter alia, for a downward modification of his maintenance obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in denying his motion for, inter alia, a downward modification of his maintenance obligation without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. The defendant failed to establish a factual basis to warrant a hearing on his alleged medical condition and forced retirement (see Matter of Fein v Gilchrist, 23 AD3d 558 [2005]; D'Alesio v D'Alesio, 300 AD2d 340 [2002]; Mandelbaum v Mandelbaum, 26 AD3d 360 [2006]; Trainor v Trainor, 188 AD2d 461 [1992]; Praeger v Praeger, 162 AD2d 671, 674 [1990]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.E, Goldstein, Skelos and Fisher, 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 August 25, 2005 the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Balkin, J.), dated May 10, 2006, which, without a hearing, denied his motion, inter alia, for a downward modification of his maintenance obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in denying his motion for, inter alia, a downward modification of his maintenance obligation without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. The defendant failed to establish a factual basis to warrant a hearing on his alleged medical condition and forced retirement (see Matter of Fein v Gilchrist, 23 AD3d 558 [2005]; D'Alesio v D'Alesio, 300 AD2d 340 [2002]; Mandelbaum v Mandelbaum, 26 AD3d 360 [2006]; Trainor v Trainor, 188 AD2d 461 [1992]; Praeger v Praeger, 162 AD2d 671, 674 [1990]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.E, Goldstein, Skelos and Fisher, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 776, 823 N.Y.S.2d 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raich-v-raich-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack