Klepp v. Klepp

Decision Date05 December 2006
Docket Number2005-06864.
Citation2006 NY Slip Op 09181,35 A.D.3d 386,826 N.Y.S.2d 629
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
PartiesMARTON KLEPP, Appellant, v. ANITA KLEPP, Respondent.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and the facts and as a matter of discretion, (1) by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the motion of the defendant former wife which was for an increase in alimony from the sum of $750 per week to the sum of $1,500 per week, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion only to the extent of increasing the alimony to the sum of $1,050 per week and otherwise denying the motion, and (2) by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the motion of the defendant former wife which was to hold the plaintiff former husband in contempt of court and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the former husband's contention, the former wife demonstrated a substantial change of circumstances warranting upward modification of alimony from the sum of $750 per week (see Matter of Hermans v Hermans, 74 NY2d 876, 878-879 [1989]; Cooper v Cooper, 179 AD2d 1035, 1036 [1992]). However, alimony in the sum of $1,050 per week is sufficient to satisfy the former wife's demonstrated needs.

In view of the former husband's failure to make timely payments of alimony, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing him to provide reasonable security to guarantee the future payment of alimony to the former wife (see Domestic Relations Law § 243; Dunbar v Dunbar, 309 AD2d 780 [2003]; Adler v Adler, 203 AD2d 81 [1994]).

However, there is no basis in this record to hold the former husband in contempt. The former husband's failure to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Keller v. Keller
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 25, 2015
    ...5241 (income execution) or CPLR 5242 (income deduction)” (Jones v. Jones, 65 A.D.3d 1016, 1016, 885 N.Y.S.2d 323 ; see Klepp v. Klepp, 35 A.D.3d 386, 826 N.Y.S.2d 629 ; Higbee v. Higbee, 260 A.D.2d 603, 688 N.Y.S.2d 669 ). Thus, contempt may be warranted where the record demonstrates “that ......
  • Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 3 Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Sec., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • September 29, 2016
  • Belkhir v. Amrane-Belkhir
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 1, 2015
    ...such remedies would be ineffectual” (Wolfe, 71 A.D.3d at 879, 895 N.Y.S.2d 855 ; seeDomestic Relations Law § 245 ; Klepp v. Klepp, 35 A.D.3d 386, 387–388, 826 N.Y.S.2d 629 ).It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is ...
  • Kew Gardens Hills Apartment Owners, Inc. v. Horing Welikson & Rosen, P.C.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 5, 2006

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