Ardito v. Ardito
| Decision Date | 28 November 1983 |
| Citation | 97 A.D.2d 830,469 N.Y.S.2d 13 |
| Parties | Joseph N. ARDITO, Appellant, v. Joan ARDITO, Respondent. |
| Court | New 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
-
Sypek v. Sypek
...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
...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
...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
...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 § ...