Ardito v. Ardito

Decision Date28 November 1983
Citation97 A.D.2d 830,469 N.Y.S.2d 13
PartiesJoseph N. ARDITO, Appellant, v. Joan ARDITO, Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Gary H. Tabat, Babylon, for appellant.

McNamara & Oliver, Bay Shore (Robert W. Oliver, Bay Shore, of counsel), for respondent.

Before BRACKEN, J.P., and BROWN, NIEHOFF and BOYERS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered January 13, 1983, which denied his motion for downward modification of his alimony obligation under a judgment of divorce and directed that plaintiff pay defendant the sum of $1,500 for counsel fees.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The subject proceeding constitutes plaintiff's fourth attempt in the New York courts, since his divorce, to decrease his alimony obligation. Plaintiff also had initiated one or two similar proceedings in Florida. Plaintiff's claims herein mirror those of the prior petitions, which have been found meritless. As such, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate an unforeseen, substantial change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a downward modification of the alimony award. Nor does he present any issue of fact requiring resolution at trial (Brody v. Brody, 22 A.D.2d 646, 252 N.Y.S.2d 1008, affd 19 N.Y.2d 790, 279 N.Y.S.2d 732, 226 N.E.2d 539; Jaworsky v. Jaworsky, 87 A.D.2d 622, 448 N.Y.S.2d 246).

In light of the relative financial circumstances of the parties and plaintiff's campaign of legal harassment waged against defendant, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant $1,500 for counsel fees, without a hearing (see Stern v. Stern, 67 A.D.2d 253, 415 N.Y.S.2d 225; Mulligan v. Mulligan, 79 A.D.2d 721, 434 N.Y.S.2d 737).

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Sypek v. Sypek
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • January 14, 1986
    ...the matter, the court awards attorney's fees to the defendant-wife in the sum of $500 [Domestic Relations Law § 247; Ardito v. Ardito, 97 A.D.2d 830, 469 N.Y.S.2d 13]. * Actually, the wife is the plaintiff in the underlying divorce action. The husband, upon this application, has denominated......
  • Sampson v. Glazer
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 18, 1985
    ...financially secure litigant is, in fact, merely waging a campaign of legal harassment against the more needy party (see Ardito v. Ardito, 97 A.D.2d 830, 469 N.Y.S.2d 13). In the instant case, appellant was not acting to protect the child's right to support and accordingly may not recover co......
  • Kremler v. Kremler
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 30, 1993
    ...agreement (cf., Simons v. Simons, 139 A.D.2d 959, 527 N.Y.S.2d 931; Davis v. Davis, 128 A.D.2d 470, 513 N.Y.S.2d 405; Ardito v. Ardito, 97 A.D.2d 830, 469 N.Y.S.2d 13). ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as awarded defendant $900 in c......
  • Bonem v. Garriott
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 1, 1990
    ...difficulties when the maintenance payments cease were not unforeseen when the separation agreement was negotiated (Ardito v. Ardito, 97 A.D.2d 830, 469 N.Y.S.2d 13) and there was no showing of "extreme hardship" entitling defendant to relief. Dom.Rel.Law § ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT