Baumgartner v. Baumgartner, 2
Decision Date | 19 April 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 2,2 |
Citation | 226 A.D.2d 1104,641 N.Y.S.2d 784 |
Parties | Matter of Lucy C. BAUMGARTNER, Appellant, v. Norman N. BAUMGARTNER, Respondent. (Appeal) |
Court | New 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.
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- Trento v. Trento
-
Mundrick v. Mundrick
...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
...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......