Ross v. Ross

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ross v. Ross

297 A.D.2d 286, 745 N.Y.2d 917, 745 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7794

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 5, 2002·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

[287] The father’s cross petition sought a downward modification of his support obligations under a judgment of divorce which is subject to the terms of a separation agreement that was incorporated but not merged into the judgment. Under such circumstances, the father must demonstrate “extreme hardship” (Matter of Cohen v Seletsky, 142 AD2d 111, 112; see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]). The Family Court properly determined that the father failed to do so (see Clark v Clark, 280 AD2d 575; Mishrick v Mishrick, 251 AD2d 558).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Smith, Friedmann and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

[287] The father’s cross petition sought a downward modification of his support obligations under a judgment of divorce which is subject to the terms of a separation agreement that was incorporated but not merged into the judgment. Under such circumstances, the father must demonstrate “extreme hardship” (Matter of Cohen v Seletsky, 142 AD2d 111, 112; see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]). The Family Court properly determined that the father failed to do so (see Clark v Clark, 280 AD2d 575; Mishrick v Mishrick, 251 AD2d 558).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Smith, Friedmann and Adams, JJ., concur.

Ross v. Ross, 297 A.D.2d 286, 745 N.Y.2d 917, 745 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

297 A.D.2d 286 (Ross v. Ross) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related