Koch v. Koch

Citation134 A.D.2d 574,521 N.Y.S.2d 474
PartiesSheila KOCH, Respondent, v. Donald KOCH, Appellant.
Decision Date30 November 1987
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Page 474

521 N.Y.S.2d 474
134 A.D.2d 574
Sheila KOCH, Respondent,
Donald KOCH, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Second Department.
Nov. 30, 1987.

Page 475

David Saft, East Moriches, for appellant.

Seligman & Seligman, Garden City (Delores Seligmar, of counsel), for respondent.



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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Fraguela v. Fraguela
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • November 27, 1991
    ...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
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • June 25, 1990
    ...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
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • July 17, 1989
    ...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
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • October 11, 1994
    ...(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......
  • 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