Ward v. Ward

79 A.D.2d 683, 433 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14065
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 22, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 79 A.D.2d 683 (Ward v. Ward) 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
Ward v. Ward, 79 A.D.2d 683, 433 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14065 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

In an action in which the plaintiff was granted a divorce, the defendant appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, entered May 7, 1980, which, after a hearing, inter alia, (1) awarded plaintiff the sum of $12,-500, representing arrears in support payments, (2) directed defendant to pay counsel fees of $2,500 and (3) granted an upward modification of each child’s support payments from $50 per week to $75 per week and the alimony payments from $100 per week to $150 per week. Order modified, on the law, and the facts, by (1) deleting from the second and third decertal paragraphs thereof that part which granted an increase in alimony payments and (2) reducing the counsel fee to $1,500. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The record indicates that the father has had a substantial increase in income (50%) and his children’s expenses have substantially changed as a result of additional extracurricular activities typically engaged in by growing children. Under the circumstances, an upward modification of child support is warranted (see Coen v Coen, 56 AD2d 810). However, a substantial increase in the hus[684]*684band’s salary does not present a substantial change in circumstances to justify an upward modification of alimony (Kover v Kover, 29 NY2d 408). This court is also mindful that the wife was employed for one year and eight months following her divorce before she justifiably left her job. The record indicates the wife is employable within the meaning of Kay v Kay (37 NY2d 632, 638). Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Cohalan and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hickman v. Hickman
165 N.Y.S.3d 636 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Georgette D.W. v. Gary N.R.
134 A.D.3d 406 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Dan v. Dan
Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2014
Jan S. v. Leonard S.
26 Misc. 3d 243 (New York Supreme Court, 2009)
Gallousis v. Gallousis
303 A.D.2d 363 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Rough v. Kandell
135 A.D.2d 700 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
King v. King
103 A.D.2d 871 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
La Blanc v. La Blanc
96 A.D.2d 670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Brescia v. Fitts
436 N.E.2d 518 (New York Court of Appeals, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
79 A.D.2d 683, 433 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-ward-nyappdiv-1980.