Brody v. Brody
| Decision Date | 06 October 1964 |
| Citation | 252 N.Y.S.2d 1008,22 A.D.2d 646 |
| Parties | Evelyn BRODY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barnie BRODY, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
J. M. Foley, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
S. H. Lowell, New York City, for defendant-respondent.
Before BREITEL, J. P., and RABIN, STEVENS, EAGER and STEUER, JJ.
Order, entered October 1, 1962, confirming the report of official referee and granting defendant's motion to amend judgment of separation to reduce the alimony and support payments, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to provide that defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of $370 per week for the support and maintenance of the plaintiff and of the children, Clifford and June, commencing as of November 28, 1961, in lieu of the sum of $320, as provided in said order; and said order otherwise affirmed with $30 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant. The judgment of separation, providing for weekly payments of $420 by the defendant for the support and maintenance of the plaintiff and three children of the marriage, was entered in September 1958. About three years later, the defendant brought on this application seeking a reduction of the weekly payments on the ground of a change of circumstances. Ordinarily, there would be no justification for seeking a modification of the decree so soon after it was rendered except upon a showing of a substantial change of circumstances not within the contemplation of the parties at the time of settling and entry of the decree. It is not sufficient for the defendant simply to show the passage of such a period of time during which one of the children had attained majority and during which another child has entered college with the defendant directly paying his support there as provided in the judgment. (Cf. Liebmann v. Liebmann, 19 A.D.2d 821, 243 N.Y.S.2d 558). These were matters within the contemplation of the parties at the time of the entry of the judgment, and, under the circumstances here, did not entitle the defendant automatically to a reduction of the alimony as originally fixed. (See Peters v. Peters, 14 A.D.2d 778, 219 N.Y.S.2d 906; Sloan v. Sloan, 286 App.Div. 1102, 145 N.Y.S.2d 797; Judd v. Judd, Sup., 235 N.Y.S.2d 117, n. o. r.) Concededly, at the time of the rendition of the judgment the defendant was and still is a man of substantial means, and, on the basis of his income then, was and still is well able to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kover v. Kover
...1 the courts have ruled that a party seeking a reduction or increase must show a 'substantial change of circumstances'. (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; Presberg v. Presberg, 285 App.Div. 1134, 140 N.Y.S.2d 517; Hedaya......
-
Brownstein v. Brownstein
...in light of her resources, her earning capabilities and her family obligations. (See Phillips v. Phillips, supra; Brody v. Brody, 22 A.D.2d 646, 252 N.Y.S.2d 1008; Doyle v. Doyle, 5 Misc.2d 4, 158 N.Y.S.2d A wife who, without adequate reasons, prefers to live separately from her husband, sh......
-
Lois R v. Richard R
...his business (except for a few short stints) or work-training. Certainly petitioner "should be encouraged to be useful" (Brody v. Brody, 22 A.D.2d 646, 252 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1st Dept., aff'd. 19 N.Y.2d 790, 791, 279 N.Y.S.2d 732, 733, 226 N.E.2d 539, 540), but she cannot at this time be depriv......
-
Adlerman v. Adlerman
...without attempting to resolve those disputed by defendant. (Peters v. Peters, 14 A.D.2d 778, 219 N.Y.S.2d 906; cf. Brody v. Brody, 22 A.D.2d 646, 252 N.Y.S.2d 1008; Liebmann v. Liebmann, 22 A.D.2d 663, 253 N.Y.S.2d BOTEIN, P.J., and BREITEL, McNALLY, STEUER and WITMER, JJ., concur. ...