Isichenko v. Isichenko, 2015–12508

• Decision Date: 09 May 2018
• Docket Number: 2015–12508,Index No. 2104/11
• Parties: Michael ISICHENKO, appellant, v. Tanya ISICHENKO, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

161 A.D.3d 833
75 N.Y.S.3d 530

Michael ISICHENKO, appellant,
v.
Tanya ISICHENKO, respondent.

2015–12508
Index No. 2104/11

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

Submitted—January 19, 2018
May 9, 2018

David I. Bliven, White Plains, NY, for appellant.

McCarthy Fingar, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Kathleen Donelli and Kristen Pennessi of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SANDRA L. SGROI, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Janet C. Malone, J.), dated December 2, 2015. The order denied, without a hearing, the plaintiff's motion for a downward modification of his spousal maintenance and child support obligations, and granted the defendant's cross motion for an award of costs in the

75 N.Y.S.3d 531

form of attorney's fees in the sum of $15,000.

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, (1) by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for a downward modification of his spousal maintenance obligation, and (2) by deleting the provision thereof granting the defendant's cross motion, and substituting therefor a provision denying the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

The parties were divorced by a judgment dated July 8, 2011, which set forth, inter alia, the plaintiff's obligations with respect to spousal maintenance, and child support for the parties' son. In 2015, the plaintiff moved for a downward modification of those obligations. The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that a change of circumstances had occurred warranting modification; specifically, a loss of employment which significantly reduced his annual income, a substantial increase in the defendant's income and net asset value, and the fact that the child no longer resided with the defendant...