Wells v. Wells

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wells v. Wells

242 A.D.2d 934, 662 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10526

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 934 (Wells v. Wells) 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

Wells v. Wells, 242 A.D.2d 934, 662 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that Supreme Court erred in summarily denying his cross motion for a downward modification of maintenance. The conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations of defendant that there is a substantial change of circumstances based on plaintiffs increase in income and his early retirement do not require a hearing (see, Martin v Martin, 194 AD2d 769, 770; Schnoor v Schnoor, 189 AD2d 809, 810; Nordhauser v Nordhauser, 130 AD2d 561, 562). At the time of the divorce, plaintiff was a housewife who had not worked outside of the home during the marriage. Defendant failed to demonstrate that plaintiffs subsequent increase in income was unanticipated. In addition, defendant submitted no proof, other than his unsubstantiated allegations, that he was compelled to take an early retirement at age 62, rather than at the age of 65 as allegedly contemplated at the time of the divorce (see, Martin v Martin, supra, at 770). Thus, the court properly determined that no hearing was necessary and properly denied the cross motion (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; McCarthy v McCarthy, 214 AD2d 1000, 1001; Stempler v Stempler, 200 AD2d 733, 734). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gorski, J.—Maintenance.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Doerr, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that Supreme Court erred in summarily denying his cross motion for a downward modification of maintenance. The conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations of defendant that there is a substantial change of circumstances based on plaintiffs increase in income and his early retirement do not require a hearing (see, Martin v Martin, 194 AD2d 769, 770; Schnoor v Schnoor, 189 AD2d 809, 810; Nordhauser v Nordhauser, 130 AD2d 561, 562). At the time of the divorce, plaintiff was a housewife who had not worked outside of the home during the marriage. Defendant failed to demonstrate that plaintiffs subsequent increase in income was unanticipated. In addition, defendant submitted no proof, other than his unsubstantiated allegations, that he was compelled to take an early retirement at age 62, rather than at the age of 65 as allegedly contemplated at the time of the divorce (see, Martin v Martin, supra, at 770). Thus, the court properly determined that no hearing was necessary and properly denied the cross motion (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; McCarthy v McCarthy, 214 AD2d 1000, 1001; Stempler v Stempler, 200 AD2d 733, 734). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gorski, J.—Maintenance.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Doerr, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 934, 662 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-wells-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack