Sternberg v. Sternberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sternberg v. Sternberg

181 A.D.2d 1073, 582 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4734

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 181 A.D.2d 1073 (Sternberg v. Sternberg) 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

Sternberg v. Sternberg, 181 A.D.2d 1073, 582 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4734 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiff’s child support application without an evidentiary hearing (see, Szablak v Keida, 155 AD2d 887; Jonasse v Jonasse, 116 AD2d 997). Where, as here, such an application is predicated on the child’s right to receive adequate support, the moving party need not demonstrate an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances (see, Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132, 139-140). Rather, it is sufficient to show that a change in circumstances has occurred warranting an increase in the child’s best interest (see, Matter of Michaels v Michaels, 56 NY2d 924, 926; Matter of Sutton v Sutton, 178 AD2d 980). When measured against such a standard, plaintiff’s application was sufficient. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Willis, J. — Child Support.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiff’s child support application without an evidentiary hearing (see, Szablak v Keida, 155 AD2d 887; Jonasse v Jonasse, 116 AD2d 997). Where, as here, such an application is predicated on the child’s right to receive adequate support, the moving party need not demonstrate an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances (see, Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132, 139-140). Rather, it is sufficient to show that a change in circumstances has occurred warranting an increase in the child’s best interest (see, Matter of Michaels v Michaels, 56 NY2d 924, 926; Matter of Sutton v Sutton, 178 AD2d 980). When measured against such a standard, plaintiff’s application was sufficient. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Willis, J. — Child Support.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 1073, 582 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sternberg-v-sternberg-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack