Schwam v. Schwam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwam v. Schwam

279 A.D.2d 516, 718 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 344

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 516 (Schwam v. Schwam) 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

Schwam v. Schwam, 279 A.D.2d 516, 718 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment entered June 3, 1998, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Schaffer, R.), entered December 22, 1999, which, inter alia, denied that branch of his motion which was for downward modification of his maintenance obligation, granted that branch of his motion which was for downward modification of his child support obligation only to the extent of reducing that obligation to $22,261.66 per year, and granted the defendant’s application for an award of an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of entitlement to modification of the maintenance provisions of the parties’ stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into their judgment of divorce. The plaintiff failed to establish that continued [517]*517enforcement of the maintenance obligation would result in extreme hardship (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Pozza v Pozza, 260 AD2d 360; Sheridan v Sheridan, 225 AD2d 604).

The court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s application for an award of an attorney’s fee (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237; DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Florio and Schmidt, 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 a judgment entered June 3, 1998, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Schaffer, R.), entered December 22, 1999, which, inter alia, denied that branch of his motion which was for downward modification of his maintenance obligation, granted that branch of his motion which was for downward modification of his child support obligation only to the extent of reducing that obligation to $22,261.66 per year, and granted the defendant’s application for an award of an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of entitlement to modification of the maintenance provisions of the parties’ stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into their judgment of divorce. The plaintiff failed to establish that continued [517]*517enforcement of the maintenance obligation would result in extreme hardship (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Pozza v Pozza, 260 AD2d 360; Sheridan v Sheridan, 225 AD2d 604).

The court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s application for an award of an attorney’s fee (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237; DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 516, 718 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwam-v-schwam-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack