Paget v. Paget
| Decision Date | 15 April 1971 |
| Citation | 36 A.D.2d 813,320 N.Y.S.2d 325 |
| Parties | Eleanor W. PAGET, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Portman A. PAGET, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
L. H. Raines, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent.
C. Greenberg, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before STEVENS, P.J., and CAPOZZOLI, MARKEWICH, TILZER and EAGER, JJ.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County, entered on August 12, 1970, granting plaintiff's motion for an order modifying the judgment of divorce dated February 6, 1970 to increase alimony from $100 to $150 per week and denying defendant's motion to confirm the Referee's report, reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the Referee's report recommending that plaintiff's motion be denied is confirmed, and plaintiff's motion for an upward modification of alimony is denied, without costs and without disbursements to either party.
This application for an upward modification of alimony was brought less than 3 years after entry of the original decree of divorce. The basis of the application is that since the decree of divorce the defendant's income has increased while plaintiff's income has decreased. With respect to the decrease in plaintiff's income, it is to be noted that even in the year prior to the divorce her income was only about $600 and that such was considered by the trial court when it rendered its original award. We note in this respect that there is nothing in the record to establish that plaintiff could not secure gainful employment if she so desires. Her ability for self-support is an important factor in determining the amount of alimony (Phillips v. Phillips, 1 A.D.2d 393, 150 N.Y.S.2d 646; aff'd, 2 N.Y.2d 742, 157 N.Y.S.2d 378, 138 N.E.2d 738).
With respect to the alleged increase in defendant's income, it does appear that there was a substantial increase in 1969, but at least part of such increase was shown to be temporary in nature. Upon an application of this nature, it is incumbent upon plaintiff to show a 'substantial change of circumstances not within the contemplation of the parties at the time of settling and entry of decree'. (Brody v. Brody, 22 A.D.2d 646, 252 N.Y.S.2d 1008; aff'd, 19 N.Y.2d 790, 279 N.Y.S.2d 732, 226 N.E.2d 539.) Merely showing that the husband's income has increased does not satisfy such requirement. 'A wife is not entitled to share in a husband's income as such * * *'. (Hearst v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lois R v. Richard R
...637, 376 N.Y.S.2d at p. 445, 339 N.E.2d at p. 146; Okpaku v. Okpaku, 45 A.D.2d 951, 359 N.Y.S.2d 310 (1st Dept.); Paget v. Paget, 36 A.D.2d 813, 320 N.Y.S.2d 325 (1st Dept.). But petitioner lacks the opportunities of a wife who has recently held regular employment (see Lewis v. Lewis, 37 A.......
-
Morgan v. Morgan
...a wife's potential earnings from the amount which would otherwise be found payable as alimony by her ex-husband. See Paget v. Paget, 36 A.D.2d 813, 320 N.Y.S.2d 325, and Greene v. Greene, 40 A.D.2d 788, 789, 337 N.Y.S.2d 582, 583. While this Court recognizes plaintiff's goal in medicine, th......
-
Keyes v. Keyes
...(see, e.g., Hearst v. Hearst, 3 A.D.2d 706, 159 N.Y.S.2d 753, affd., 3 N.Y.2d 967, 169 N.Y.S.2d 36, 149 N.E.2d 792; Paget v. Paget, 36 A.D.2d 813, 320 N.Y.S.2d 325). Furthermore, the phrase, as used in the supplemental separation agreement, is neutral and cannot be construed, as urged by ap......
-
Paget v. Paget
...of the support. This Court, reversing Special Term (which had increased alimony to $150 per week) denied the application. 36 A.D.2d 813, 320 N.Y.S.2d 325. In October 1980, petitioner brought the present application seeking an increase to $350 per week. A hearing before a special referee res......