Koch v. Koch
| Decision Date | 30 November 1987 |
| Citation | 134 A.D.2d 574,521 N.Y.S.2d 474 |
| Parties | Sheila KOCH, Respondent, v. Donald KOCH, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
David Saft, East Moriches, for appellant.
Seligman & Seligman, Garden City (Delores Seligmar, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and BROWN, WEINSTEIN and SPATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered February 1, 1978, the defendant husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated August 25, 1986, as (1) denied those branches of his motion which were for modification of the judgment of divorce, to eliminate the award of alimony to the plaintiff wife and for financial disclosure by her, and (2) directed him to pay counsel fees in the amount of $750 to the plaintiff.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by reducing the award of counsel fees to $500; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court properly concluded that the defendant husband had failed to make a sufficient showing of a substantial change in circumstances warranting elimination or reduction of the alimony award (see, Lipow v. Lipow, 110 A.D.2d 756, 488 N.Y.S.2d 47; Gagliardi v. Gagliardi, 18 A.D.2d 788, 236 N.Y.S.2d 510). Although the defendant demonstrated that his financial situation had changed, his own statement of net worth filed with his motion contradicted his claim that the changes had a negative effect on his ability to pay the awarded alimony. With respect to his claim that the plaintiff's financial 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 financial disclosure.
Although the plaintiff was not otherwise required to do so, her failure to file a statement of net worth pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.16(g)(1) precludes recovery of money expended for counsel fees to oppose the defendant's motion for modification of the alimony provisions. She may, however, recover counsel fees for services rendered "to secure * * * enforcement of a previously granted order or decree" (22 NYCRR 202.16[g] ) without filing a net worth statement. Accordingly, the order awarding counsel fees is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fraguela v. Fraguela
...202.16(g) that a statement of net worth be furnished in the official form prescribed when applying for maintenance (see, Koch v. Koch, 134 A.D.2d 574, 521 N.Y.S.2d 474; Lehmann v. Lehmann, 126 A.D.2d 609, 511 N.Y.S.2d 49). Therefore, in view of plaintiff's failure to comply, Supreme Court p......
-
Praeger v. Praeger
...supra, 130 A.D.2d at 562, 515 N.Y.S.2d 501; see also, Gerringer v. Gerringer, supra, 152 A.D.2d at 653, 543 N.Y.S.2d 734; Koch v. Koch, 134 A.D.2d 574, 521 N.Y.S.2d 474), the court did not err in denying his request for such a ...
-
Gerringer v. Gerringer
...the husband's application to terminate the maintenance provisions was properly denied without a hearing (see, Koch v. Koch, 134 A.D.2d 574, 521 N.Y.S.2d 474; Nordhauser v. Nordhauser, 130 A.D.2d 561, 515 N.Y.S.2d 501; Pintus v. Pintus, 104 A.D.2d 866, 480 N.Y.S.2d 501; Doscher v. Doscher, 8......
-
Lamberson v. Lamberson
...(Praeger v. Praeger, 162 A.D.2d 671, 557 N.Y.S.2d 394; Gerringer v. Gerringer, 152 A.D.2d 652, 543 N.Y.S.2d 734; Koch v. Koch, 134 A.D.2d 574, 521 N.Y.S.2d 474). Rather, since the parties' agreement, including the former husband's obligation to pay the former wife $100 per week for life, is......