Schlakman v. Schlakman

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Citation: Schlakman v. Schlakman, 38 AD3d 640, 833 N.Y.S.2d 121, 2007 NY Slip Op 2104 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
• Decision Date: 13 March 2007
• Docket Number: 2005-07536.
• Parties: JO-ANNE C. SCHLAKMAN, Respondent, v. GEOFFREY C. SCHLAKMAN, Appellant.

38 A.D.3d 640

833 N.Y.S.2d 121

2007 NY Slip Op 02104

JO-ANNE C. SCHLAKMAN, Respondent, v. GEOFFREY C. SCHLAKMAN, Appellant.

2005-07536.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

Decided March 13, 2007.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered June 9, 2003, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), dated July 7, 2005, as, after a hearing, denied his motion for a downward modification or suspension of his maintenance obligation, and a downward modification of his child support obligation, as provided in a stipulation of settlement dated November 15, 2002, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Having executed a stipulation of settlement which was incorporated but not merged into the subsequent judgment of divorce, the defendant was required to establish an unanticipated change in circumstances to justify a downward modification of his child support obligation (see Mahato v Mahato, 16 AD3d 386 [2005]; Praeger v Praeger, 162 AD2d 671 [1990]), and an extreme hardship to justify a suspension or reduction of spousal maintenance (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Beard v Beard, 300 AD2d 268 [2002]; Vinnik v Vinnik, 295 AD2d 339 [2002]).

The Supreme Court, which heard the evidence and observed the witnesses' demeanor, properly rejected the defendant's allegation of an unanticipated change in circumstances warranting a downward modification of his child support obligation (see Douglas v Douglas, 7 AD3d 481 [2004]; Matter of Barrett v Pickett, 5 AD3d 591 [2004]...