Sheridan v. Sheridan

225 A.D.2d 604, 639 N.Y.2d 732, 639 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2162
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 11, 1996·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

The Supreme Court correctly found that the former wife failed to make out a prima facie case of entitlement to modifica[605] tion of the maintenance provisions of the parties’ separation agreement which was incorporated, but not merged, into their judgment of divorce. The wife failed to establish that the continued enforcement of the maintenance provisions would create an extreme hardship for her (see, Zinkiewicz v Zinkiewicz, 222 AD2d 684; Didley v Didley, 194 AD2d 7, 10). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion in the absence of a hearing. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Sheridan v. Sheridan, 225 A.D.2d 604, 639 N.Y.2d 732, 639 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2162 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

225 A.D.2d 604 (Sheridan v. Sheridan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Miller v. Miller
18 A.D.3d 629 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Annis v. Annis
297 A.D.2d 378 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Vinnik v. Vinnik
295 A.D.2d 339 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Clark v. Clark
280 A.D.2d 575 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Schwam v. Schwam
279 A.D.2d 516 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Pozza v. Pozza
260 A.D.2d 360 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Mishrick v. Mishrick
251 A.D.2d 558 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Luftig v. Luftig
239 A.D.2d 225 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Haydock v. Haydock
237 A.D.2d 748 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)