Jaworsky v. Jaworsky
| Decision Date | 22 March 1982 |
| Parties | Alice JAWORSKY, Respondent, v. Roman JAWORSKY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert L. Ferris, New York City, for appellant.
Milton Amgott, New York City, for respondent.
Before TITONE, J. P., and GIBBONS, WEINSTEIN and RUBIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a matrimonial action, the defendant husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 6, 1981, as denied his cross motion, inter alia, to reduce alimony payments and to require the plaintiff wife to share the expenses for the repair of the marital residence.
Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements.
By cross motion, defendant seeks (1) a downward modification of the judgment based on (a) his alleged added expenses and debts due to his ownership of the former marital residence conveyed to him in December, 1980, by virtue of an order of October 28, 1980, made and entered in accordance with a stipulation of the parties, dated September 4, 1980, and (b) his claim that the $200 gross salary alleged by the plaintiff wife, as a legal secretary and confirmed by her employer, is false and understated, and (2) reimbursement of one-half of a roof repair bill which he claims by virtue of a provision contained in the judgment of divorce, dated October 13, 1978, for sharing of repair bills in excess of $150.
An examination of this record discloses that since the divorce judgment, the parties have prosecuted a series of motions and cross motions against each other. Under the terms of the judgment, defendant was awarded exclusive possession of the marital premises.
By order dated March 31, 1980, the court, in awarding sole custody of the two children of the parties to the defendant, substantially modified the provision for monthly support by, inter alia, reducing the monthly payments from $260 to $60.
In a decision dated January 22, 1981, the court denied defendant's cross motion to delete alimony payments, stating that "change of circumstances since the court's prior order has been shown."
By the order appealed from, dated July 6, 1981, the court denied a similar cross motion by defendant for downward modification; this time assigning as the reason that "no change in circumstances is shown since the numerous prior orders of this court denying the same relief."
Defendant's affidavit in support of his instant cross motion is conclusory and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ardito v. Ardito
...at trial (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; Jaworsky v. Jaworsky, 87 A.D.2d 622, 448 N.Y.S.2d 246). In light of the relative financial circumstances of the parties and plaintiff's campaign of legal harassment waged agains......
-
Leone v. Leone
...of Funt v. Funt, 65 N.Y.2d 893, 493 N.Y.S.2d 303, 482 N.E.2d 1219; Ardito v. Ardito, 97 A.D.2d 830, 469 N.Y.S.2d 13; Jaworsky v. Jaworsky, 87 A.D.2d 622, 448 N.Y.S.2d 246). Prior to the instant application dated August 28, 1985, for a downward modification of child support, the respondent m......
-
Koch v. Koch
...status had changed substantially, the defendant's allegations were conclusory and based upon speculation (see, Jaworsky v. Jaworsky, 87 A.D.2d 622, 448 N.Y.S.2d 246). In the absence of the requisite initial showing, the court properly denied the defendant's requests for a hearing and for fi......