Baumgartner v. Baumgartner, 2

Decision Date19 April 1996
Docket NumberNo. 2,2
Citation226 A.D.2d 1104,641 N.Y.S.2d 784
PartiesMatter of Lucy C. BAUMGARTNER, Appellant, v. Norman N. BAUMGARTNER, Respondent. (Appeal)
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Appeal from Order of Genesee County Family Court, Graney, J.--Spousal Support.

E. Robert Fussell, P.C. by E. Robert Fussell, Leroy, for Appellant.

Michael A. Delplato, Batavia, for Respondent.

Before LAWTON, J.P., and FALLON, CALLAHAN, DOERR and BOEHM, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Family Court erred in confirming the Hearing Examiner's finding that an upward modification of spousal support is not warranted (see, Matter of Pulver v. Pulver, 188 A.D.2d 1044, 1045, 591 N.Y.S.2d 676, lv. dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 706, 601 N.Y.S.2d 585, 619 N.E.2d 663; Mooney v. Mooney, 84 A.D.2d 745, 443 N.Y.S.2d 748). The record establishes that respondent's yearly income has increased from $33,379.00 in 1988, when the previous support order was granted, to $55,384.18 in 1993. It also shows that petitioner's expenses have increased since 1988 and that the previous award of spousal support is insufficient to meet her needs. We therefore grant the petition and increase the amount of spousal support from $150 per week to $250 per week, retroactive to the date of filing of the petition.

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, objections sustained, order of Hearing Examiner vacated and petition granted.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Trento v. Trento
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 19, 1996
  • Mundrick v. Mundrick
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 30, 2010
    ...maintenance award was insufficient to meet her needs with respect to health care ( see generally Matter of Baumgartner v. Baumgartner [appeal No. 2], 226 A.D.2d 1104, 641 N.Y.S.2d 784). Because the increase in maintenance will offset plaintiff's health care costs, we agree with defendant, h......
  • Mitchell v. Mitchell
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • April 19, 2011
    ...demonstrated her inability to be self-supporting ( seeDomestic Relations Law § 236[B][9][b]; Matter of Baumgartner v. Baumgartner, 226 A.D.2d 1104, 641 N.Y.S.2d 784). Thus, we remit this matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a determination regarding the proper amount of incr......

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