Capozzoli v. Capozzoli
Decision Date | 01 February 2011 |
Citation | 916 N.Y.S.2d 792,81 A.D.3d 584 |
Parties | John CAPOZZOLI, appellant, v. Celia CAPOZZOLI, respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
81 A.D.3d 584
John CAPOZZOLI, appellant,
v.
Celia CAPOZZOLI, respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb. 1, 2011.
Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., Chestnut Ridge, N.Y. (William T. Schiffman of counsel), for appellant.
Gaylor & Warmund, LLP, Lynbrook, N.Y. (C. William Gaylor III of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to set aside the maintenance and child support provisions of a stipulation of settlement dated January 12, 2000, which was " incorporated and made a part of" a judgment dated January 19, 2000, the plaintiff former husband appeals from (1)
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, his motion to modify the judgment of divorce, the stipulation dated March 30, 2007, and the consent order dated June 1, 2007, so as to eliminate his obligation to pay maintenance and to reduce his child support obligation. With regard to that branch of the motion which was to eliminate his maintenance obligation, the plaintiff did not establish, prima facie, that continued enforcement of his maintenance obligation would create an extreme hardship ( see Klein v. Klein, 74 A.D.3d 753, 901 N.Y.S.2d 545; DiVito v. DiVito, 56 A.D.3d 601, 602, 867 N.Y.S.2d 334; Mahato v. Mahato, 16 A.D.3d 386, 790 N.Y.S.2d 409; Vinnik v. Vinnik, 295 A.D.2d 339, 742 N.Y.S.2d 673). In addition, with regard to that branch of the motion which was for a downward modification of his child support obligation, he did not establish, prima facie, that there had been a substantial, unanticipated, and unreasonable change in circumstances ( see Klein v. Klein, 74 A.D.3d 753, 901 N.Y.S.2d 545; Praeger v. Praeger, 162 A.D.2d 671, 673-674, 557 N.Y.S.2d 394).
Moreover, the Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiff's subsequent motion, in effect, for leave to renew. "In general, a motion for leave to renew must be based...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sanseri v. Sanseri
...(3rd Dept.2014) (to justify changes there must be proof of a change to their current financial circumstances); Capozzoli v. Capozzoli, 81 A.D.3d 584, 916 N.Y.S.2d 792 (2nd Dept.2011). These post- Northrup statutory changes, considered as a package, are bright evidence that the Legislature, ......
-
Sanseri v. Sanseri
...(3rd Dept.2014) (to justify changes there must be proof of a change to their current financial circumstances); Capozzoli v. Capozzoli, 81 A.D.3d 584, 916 N.Y.S.2d 792 (2nd Dept.2011). These post-Northrup statutory changes, considered as a package, are bright evidence that the Legislature, i......
-
Cangemi v. Burgan
...v. Weissman, 68 A.D.3d at 797-798, 890 N.Y.S.2d 615, quoting916 N.Y.S.2d 137Robles v. City of New York, 56 A.D.3d 647, 868 N.Y.S.2d 114).81 A.D.3d 584 Here, the defendant satisfied her prima facie burden of establishing her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Winegrad v. New Yo......
-
Schwaber v. Schwaber
...maintenance obligation would result in the extreme hardship necessary to warrant a downward modification ( see Capozzoli v. Capozzoli, 81 A.D.3d 584, 585, 916 N.Y.S.2d 792; Klein v. Klein, 74 A.D.3d 753, 901 N.Y.S.2d 545; DiVito v. DiVito, 56 A.D.3d 601, 602, 867 N.Y.S.2d 334; Mahato v. Mah......