Sheets v. Sheets

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sheets v. Sheets

95 A.D.3d 1198, 945 N.Y.S.2d 143

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

DecidedMay 23, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 95 A.D.3d 1198 (Sheets v. Sheets) 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

Sheets v. Sheets, 95 A.D.3d 1198, 945 N.Y.S.2d 143 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered June 4, 2002, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Buetow, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated February 3, 2011, which, after a hearing, denied his motion for termination or downward modification of his maintenance obligation and, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was to enforce the obligation, and awarded maintenance arrears in the amount of [1199]*1199$40,600 to the plaintiff, and (2) an order of the same court dated April 12, 2011, which granted the plaintiffs motion for an award of counsel fees to the extent of awarding counsel fees in the amount of $5,625 to the plaintiffs attorney and additional counsel fees in the amount of $1,000 to the plaintiff.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant failed to demonstrate his entitlement to the termination or downward modification of his maintenance obligation. Although the defendant established that he lost his former employment through no fault of his own, and that this job loss qualified as a change in circumstances under the parties’ judgment of divorce, the record supports the court’s finding that the reversal of the defendant’s financial condition was created by his voluntary decision to decline another job offer. Under these circumstances, and because there is insufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that the defendant engaged in good faith efforts to obtain employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience, the defendant failed to establish that a reduction in his maintenance obligation was warranted (see Matter of Scotti v Scotti, 82 AD3d 1107, 1108 [2011]; Matter of Lebron v Pringle, 77 AD3d 835, 836 [2010]).

Furthermore, under the facts presented, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for an award of counsel fees to the extent of awarding counsel fees in the amount of $5,625 to the plaintiffs attorney and additional counsel fees in the amount of $1,000 to the plaintiff (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [b], [c]; § 238; see generally Matter of Kotsonis v Notias, 78 AD3d 702, 702-703 [2010]; Rodman v Friedman, 33 AD3d 400, 400-401 [2006]; Green v Green, 288 AD2d 436, 437 [2001]). Mastro, A.P.J., Florio, Chambers and Roman, 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 June 4, 2002, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Buetow, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated February 3, 2011, which, after a hearing, denied his motion for termination or downward modification of his maintenance obligation and, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was to enforce the obligation, and awarded maintenance arrears in the amount of [1199]*1199$40,600 to the plaintiff, and (2) an order of the same court dated April 12, 2011, which granted the plaintiffs motion for an award of counsel fees to the extent of awarding counsel fees in the amount of $5,625 to the plaintiffs attorney and additional counsel fees in the amount of $1,000 to the plaintiff.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant failed to demonstrate his entitlement to the termination or downward modification of his maintenance obligation. Although the defendant established that he lost his former employment through no fault of his own, and that this job loss qualified as a change in circumstances under the parties’ judgment of divorce, the record supports the court’s finding that the reversal of the defendant’s financial condition was created by his voluntary decision to decline another job offer. Under these circumstances, and because there is insufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that the defendant engaged in good faith efforts to obtain employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience, the defendant failed to establish that a reduction in his maintenance obligation was warranted (see Matter of Scotti v Scotti, 82 AD3d 1107, 1108 [2011]; Matter of Lebron v Pringle, 77 AD3d 835, 836 [2010]).

Furthermore, under the facts presented, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for an award of counsel fees to the extent of awarding counsel fees in the amount of $5,625 to the plaintiffs attorney and additional counsel fees in the amount of $1,000 to the plaintiff (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [b], [c]; § 238; see generally Matter of Kotsonis v Notias, 78 AD3d 702, 702-703 [2010]; Rodman v Friedman, 33 AD3d 400, 400-401 [2006]; Green v Green, 288 AD2d 436, 437 [2001]). Mastro, A.P.J., Florio, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.3d 1198, 945 N.Y.S.2d 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheets-v-sheets-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack