Sheila C. v. Donald C.
Decision Date | 02 March 2004 |
Docket Number | 2987. |
Citation | 5 A.D.3d 123,2004 NY Slip Op 01331,773 N.Y.S.2d 22 |
Parties | SHEILA C., Respondent, v. DONALD C., Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
To obtain modification of the maintenance aspect of a stipulation that has been incorporated but not merged into a divorce judgment, a party must show extreme hardship, not merely a substantial change in circumstances (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Matter of Cohen v Seletsky, 142 AD2d 111, 118-119 [1988]). Respondent satisfied the extreme hardship standard. However, because he did not prove that his income would never recover, his request for a permanent reduction of his maintenance obligation was properly denied (see Pintus v Pintus, 104 AD2d 866, 869 [1984]). If respondent's extreme financial hardship persists at the end of the period for which he has been granted a downward modification, he may make a further application for such relief.
Contrary to respondent's assertion, the court has the authority to increase the duration of a maintenance obligation (see e.g. Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Popack v Popack, 179 AD2d 746 [1992], lv denied 83 NY2d 754 [1994]). However, the Hearing Examiner's assumption that Sheila gave up marital property or "perks" in return for longer or higher maintenance, which formed the basis for his decision to extend respondent's maintenance obligation, is not supported by the record.
The purpose of maintenance is to give the recipient spouse a sufficient period to become self-supporting (see e.g. Sperling v Sperling, 165 AD2d 338, 343 [1991]). Petitioner's contention that the aneurysm she...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anonymous v. Anonymous
...lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 909, 2014 WL 6475220 [2014] ) or "a sufficient period to become self-supporting" (Sheila C. v. Donald C., 5 A.D.3d 123, 124, 773 N.Y.S.2d 22 [1st Dept.2004] ) after a marriage has ended. The purpose of temporary maintenance, by contrast, is to provide for the reasonable......
-
Sonkin v. Sonkin
...was incorporated but not merged into the parties' divorce judgment (see Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][9][b][1] ; Sheila C. v. Donald C., 5 A.D.3d 123, 773 N.Y.S.2d 22 [1st Dept.2004] ). Nor did he demonstrate a substantial, unanticipated and unreasonable change in his circumstances to war......
-
Gordon v. Gordon
...demonstrated neither extreme hardship to warrant a downward modification of his maintenance obligations ( see Sheila C. v. Donald C., 5 A.D.3d 123, 773 N.Y.S.2d 22 [2004]; Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][9][b] [1] ), nor a substantial, unanticipated and unreasonable change in his circumstan......
-
Sonkin v. Sonkin
...in the stipulation of settlement that was incorporated but not merged into the parties' divorce judgment ( see Sheila C. v. Donald C., 5 A.D.3d 123, 773 N.Y.S.2d 22 [1st Dept.2004];Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][9][b][1] ). *480 We find defendant's argument that the court violated the anti......