Sugarman v. Sugarman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sugarman v. Sugarman

282 A.D.2d 446, 722 N.Y.S.2d 407, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3284

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

DecidedApril 2, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 446 (Sugarman v. Sugarman) 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

Sugarman v. Sugarman, 282 A.D.2d 446, 722 N.Y.S.2d 407, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3284 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated January 20, 1999, the plaintiff former husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gartenstein, J.H.O.), dated April 12, 2000, as denied that branch of his motion which was for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for a downward modification of his child support obligation, as he failed to meet his burden of establishing a substantial change in circumstances (see, Matter of Prisco v Buxbaum, 275 AD2d 461; Matter of Roth v Bowman, 237 AD2d 447; Klapper v Klapper, 204 AD2d 518, 519). [447]*447S. Miller, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein 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 dated January 20, 1999, the plaintiff former husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gartenstein, J.H.O.), dated April 12, 2000, as denied that branch of his motion which was for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for a downward modification of his child support obligation, as he failed to meet his burden of establishing a substantial change in circumstances (see, Matter of Prisco v Buxbaum, 275 AD2d 461; Matter of Roth v Bowman, 237 AD2d 447; Klapper v Klapper, 204 AD2d 518, 519). [447]*447S. Miller, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 446, 722 N.Y.S.2d 407, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sugarman-v-sugarman-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack