Pathak v. Shukla, 2015–12659
| Decision Date | 15 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 203102/07,2016–04467,2015–12659 |
| Parties | Sonal PATHAK, respondent, v. Janak SHUKLA, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
164 A.D.3d 690
84 N.Y.S.3d 490
Sonal PATHAK, respondent,
v.
Janak SHUKLA, appellant.
2015–12659
2016–04467
Index No. 203102/07
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Submitted—March 6, 2018
August 15, 2018
Janak Shukla, Syosset, NY, appellant pro se.
DiMascio & Associates, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (John P. DiMascio, Jr., and Lisa J. Silverman of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, ROBERT J. MILLER, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a matrimonial action, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Marie F. McCormack, Ct. Atty. Ref.), entered December 11, 2015, and (2) an order of the same court (Hope Schwartz Zimmerman, J.), entered April 12, 2016. The order entered December 11, 2015, insofar as appealed from, denied the defendant's motion for a downward modification of his child support obligation. The order entered April 12, 2016, inter alia, granted the plaintiff's motion to confirm a referee's report, made after a hearing, inter alia, finding that the defendant willfully violated provisions of the parties' stipulation of settlement and judgment of divorce, and held the defendant in contempt.
ORDERED that the order entered December 11, 2015, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order entered April 12, 2016, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff and the defendant were married and have two children. The plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief, and on December 10, 2009, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement in which they resolved many of the issues related to the divorce, including the defendant's child support obligation and his obligation to pay the plaintiff $40,000 for her interest in property located in India that the parties jointly owned. The Supreme Court subsequently resolved outstanding issues in a decision after trial, including equitable distribution based upon the defendant's waste of marital assets and an award of attorney's fees to the plaintiff, and issued a judgment of divorce dated November 14, 2011, which incorporated, but did not merge, the stipulation. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gharachorloo v. Regeer
...assets and earning capacity" ( Matter of Muselevichus v. Muselevichus, 40 A.D.3d 997, 998–999, 836 N.Y.S.2d 661 ; see Pathak v. Shukla, 164 A.D.3d 690, 691 ; Matter of Gillison v. Penepent, 156 A.D.3d at 698, 66 N.Y.S.3d 293 ; Matter of Binong Xu v. Sullivan, 155 A.D.3d 1031, 1033, 65 N.Y.S......
-
Siouffi v. Siouffi
...she made diligent attempts to secure employment commensurate with his or her education, ability, and experience" ( Pathak v. Shukla, 164 A.D.3d 690, 691, 84 N.Y.S.3d 490 [2018] [internal quotation marks, citations and brackets omitted]; accord Matter of Evans v. White, 173 A.D.3d 864, 865, ......
-
Durand v. Pierre-Louis
...Ct Act § 451[3][a], [b][ii] ). "A parent's loss of employment may constitute a substantial change in circumstances" ( Pathak v. Shukla, 164 A.D.3d 690, 691, 84 N.Y.S.3d 490 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "However, the proper amount of support is determined not by the parent's current ......
-
Nimely v. Corneh
...see Matter of Berg v. Berg, 166 A.D.3d 766, 88 N.Y.S.3d 414 ). Here, the father failed to satisfy that burden (see Pathak v. Shukla, 164 A.D.3d 690, 691, 84 N.Y.S.3d 490 ).The father's remaining contention is without merit. BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHAMBERS, DOWLING and WARHIT, JJ.,...