O'Neill v. O'Neill
| Decision Date | 18 March 1985 |
| Citation | 486 N.Y.S.2d 351,109 A.D.2d 829 |
| Parties | Richard O'NEILL, Appellant, v. Maureen O'NEILL, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Marvin Friedman, Richmond Hill, for appellant.
John L. Juliano, East Northport, for respondent.
Before GIBBONS, J.P., and BRACKEN, O'CONNOR and BROWN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a matrimonial action, plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 28, 1984, as denied that branch of his cross motion which sought downward modification of his child support obligation under the divorce decree to $100 per week.
Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The parties were divorced by judgment dated June 17, 1983. Pursuant to the final judgment of divorce and the stipulation entered into between the parties which survived the judgment, the defendant wife was given custody of the couple's two infant children. Plaintiff was to pay child support in the amount of $115 per week. When infant son Michael became emancipated, this amount was to be decreased to $100 per week. In November, 1983, plaintiff began to pay $100 per week, alleging that Michael had a job and was, therefore, emancipated. Defendant moved, inter alia, for a money judgment for arrears, and plaintiff cross-moved, inter alia, for downward modification of his support obligations.
Plaintiff's affidavits, containing conclusory statements as to Michael's status, failed to create a genuine issue of fact as to Michael's alleged emancipation (Levinson v. Levinson, 97 A.D.2d 458, 467 N.Y.S.2d 427). Therefore, Special Term properly denied plaintiff's cross motion for a downward modification of his support obligation without an evidentiary hearing (Gagliardi v. Gagliardi, 18 A.D.2d 788, 236 N.Y.S.2d 510).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
David W. v. Julia W.
...of a sufficient evidentiary showing to justify the hearing (see Stirber v. Stirber, 139 A.D.2d 727, 527 N.Y.S.2d 983; O'Neill v. O'Neill, 109 A.D.2d 829, 486 N.Y.S.2d 351). An examination of plaintiff's papers simply fails to reveal any factual support for his unsubstantiated assertion of f......
-
Readick v. Readick
...71, 272 N.E.2d 567 [1971]; Clifton Springs Sanitarium Co. v. Watkins, 130 A.D.2d 944, 516 N.Y.S.2d 143 [1987]; O'Neill v. O'Neill, 109 A.D.2d 829, 486 N.Y.S.2d 351 [1985] ...
-
L.M. v. B.M.
...and conclusory statements are insufficient. Smith v. Smith, 174 A.D.2d 818, 571 N.Y.S.2d 127 (3d Dep't 1991) ; O'Neill v. O'Neill, 109 A.D.2d 829, 486 N.Y.S.2d 351 (2d Dep't 1985). The application must contain specific financial data and, if based on a deteriorated physical condition, medic......
-
Howard v. Howard
...Verrone v. Voegtle, 103 A.D.2d 1005, 478 N.Y.S.2d 206; Stevenson v. Stevenson, 98 A.D.2d 718, 469 N.Y.S.2d 123; cf. O'Neill v. O'Neill, 109 A.D.2d 829, 486 N.Y.S.2d 351). The defendant next contends that Special Term misconstrued the provisions of the separation agreement governing the term......