Rosen v. Rosen

260 A.D.2d 361, 687 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3552
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 5, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 361 (Rosen v. Rosen) 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
Rosen v. Rosen, 260 A.D.2d 361, 687 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3552 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered September 12, 1989, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered November 18, 1997, as granted the defendant’s application for a downward modification of child support, and reduced that monthly child support obligation to $500 retroactive to March 1, 1996, the date of the plaintiff’s preceding application, inter alia, to hold the defendant in contempt.

Ordered that the order and judgment is modified by deleting the provision thereof reducing the monthly child support obligation of $500 retroactive to March 1, 1996, and substituting therefor a provision reducing the monthly child support obligation to the amount of $500 retroactive to September 27, 1996; as so modified, the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff.

We agree with the plaintiff that the Supreme Court erred insofar as it directed that the reduction of the defendant’s monthly child support obligation be made retroactive to March 1, 1996, some seven months prior to the defendant’s September 27, 1996, application for a downward modification of child support (see, Matter of Dox v Tynon, 90 NY2d 166, 170).

However, contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the defendant fulfilled his burden of establishing a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a downward modification of support (cf., Matter of Dallin v Dallin, 250 AD2d 847; Matter of Heverin v Sackel, 239 AD2d 418, 419; Matter of Yepes v Fichera, 230 AD2d 803, 804; Matter of Zaccagnino v Sisca, 223 AD2d 546).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Getty v. Getty
83 A.D.3d 835 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Coull v. Rottman
35 A.D.3d 198 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Kellogg v. Kellogg
300 A.D.2d 996 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
D'Alesio v. D'Alesio
300 A.D.2d 340 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
260 A.D.2d 361, 687 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosen-v-rosen-nyappdiv-1999.