Cranston v. Horton

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation99 A.D.3d 1090,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 07021,953 N.Y.S.2d 317
PartiesIn the Matter of Theresa C. CRANSTON, Respondent, v. Robert T. HORTON, Appellant. (And Three Other Related Proceedings.)
Decision Date18 October 2012

99 A.D.3d 1090
953 N.Y.S.2d 317
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 07021

In the Matter of Theresa C. CRANSTON, Respondent,
Robert T. HORTON, Appellant.

(And Three Other Related Proceedings.)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Oct. 18, 2012.

Larkin, Axelrod, Ingrassia & Tetenbaum, LLP, Newburgh (Dana M. Loiacono of counsel), for appellant.

[953 N.Y.S.2d 318]

Pro Bono Appeals Program, Albany (Joshua N. Koplovitz of counsel), for respondent.



[99 A.D.3d 1090]Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Ulster County (Mizel, J.), entered August 31, 2011, which, among other things, dismissed respondent's applications, in four proceedings pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 4, for modification of a prior child support order.

Petitioner (hereinafter the wife) and respondent (hereinafter the husband) are the divorced parents of four children (born in 1987, 1989, 1991 and 1998). In 2007, the parties executed a detailed property settlement agreement which was incorporated, but not merged, into their subsequent judgment of divorce. In four separate proceedings commenced between January 2009 and January 2010, the parties sought enforcement (wife) and modification (husband) of various terms of the agreement, resulting in a trial before a Support Magistrate, who issued an order in each proceeding to resolve the parties' disputes. Upon objections by the husband to all four orders, Family Court issued an extensive decision whereby, among other things not pertinent to this appeal, it modified the husband's child support obligation based on their eldest son's emancipation and upon the husband's reduced earnings, denied the husband's request for modification of his maintenance obligation and implicitly affirmed the Support Magistrate's determination that each parent be responsible for 33% of each child's net college expenses. With respect to the wife's allegation—in her second petition—that the husband was in willful violation of his child support obligations, the court reserved decision pending an updated report from the support collection unit, further submissions and argument of counsel. Without waiting for a final decision on willfulness, the husband now appeals, and we affirm.

The husband asserts on appeal that Family Court erred in declining to modify his “support obligations” without making [99 A.D.3d 1091]any clear distinction in his argument between his child support and his maintenance obligations. Significantly, Family Court did...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Valvo v. Valvo
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • July 6, 2023
    ...judgment of divorce, no modification as to maintenance shall be made without a showing of extreme hardship" (Matter of Cranston v Horton, 99 A.D.3d 1090, 1091 [3d Dept 2012]; see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b] [1]; McKay v McKay, 105 A.D.3d 1296, 1297 [3d Dept 2013], lv dismissed ......
  • Apjohn v. Lubinski
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • February 20, 2014
    ...son to obtain them ( see Matter of Frank v. Frank, 88 A.D.3d 1123, 1124, 931 N.Y.S.2d 196 [2011];compare Matter of Cranston v. Horton, 99 A.D.3d 1090, 1092, 953 N.Y.S.2d 317 [2012];Matter of Hartle v. Cobane, 228 A.D.2d 756, 757–758, 643 N.Y.S.2d 726 [1996] ). As repayment will apparently b......
  • McKelvey v. McKelvey
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • April 2, 2015 a hearing upon such a request if he or she is able to show prima facie evidence of “extreme hardship” (Matter of Cranston v. Horton, 99 A.D.3d 1090, 1091, 953 N.Y.S.2d 317 [2012] ; see 6 N.Y.S.3d 763Morrissey v. Morrissey, 61 A.D.3d 1089, 1090–1091, 876 N.Y.S.2d 731 [2009] ). Here, the h......
  • Spinney at Pond View, LLC v. Town Bd. of Town of Schodack
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • October 18, 2012
    ...York State & Local Employees' Retirement Sys., 291 A.D.2d at 714, 738 N.Y.S.2d 438 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see [99 A.D.3d 1090]Matter of Town of Olive v. City of New York, 63 A.D.3d at 1418, 881 N.Y.S.2d 228;Matter of Aubin v. State of New York, 282 A.D.2d at 921–92......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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