Sitler v. Sitler
| Decision Date | 01 November 1999 |
| Citation | 697 N.Y.S.2d 316,266 A.D.2d 202 |
| Parties | GERRI A. SITLER, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>JOSEPH H. SITLER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
O'Brien, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the action is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
The defendant demonstrated that since the time of the divorce judgment his gross annual income has been substantially reduced as a result of his early retirement due to medical reasons which were adequately demonstrated in the record. Moreover, the plaintiff's income has increased, since she is now receiving a portion of the husband's pension.
The defendant has thus shown a change in the financial circumstances of both parties sufficient to warrant a downward modification of his maintenance and medical insurance premium obligations to the wife (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Manno v Manno, 224 AD2d 395; cf., Chasin v Chasin, 195 AD2d 922). However, on the record before us, the precise amount of net annual income (i.e., after taxes) which the defendant currently receives cannot be determined. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for a hearing on this issue, and for the calculation of modified awards commensurate with the parties' current financial circumstances.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ligreci v. Ligreci
...336; Sass v. Sass, 276 A.D.2d 42, 716 N.Y.S.2d 686; Matter of Prisco v. Buxbaum, 275 A.D.2d 461, 712 N.Y.S.2d 891; Sitler v. Sitler, 266 A.D.2d 202, 697 N.Y.S.2d 316). In determining if there is a substantial change in circumstances to justify a downward modification, the change is measured......
-
Schwartz v. Schwartz
...(see generally David v. David, 54 A.D.3d 714, 864 N.Y.S.2d 76 ; Kayemba v. Kayemba, 46 A.D.3d 994, 846 N.Y.S.2d 801 ; Sitler v. Sitler, 266 A.D.2d 202, 697 N.Y.S.2d 316 ). In view of all of the circumstances in this case, including the parties' respective financial positions and the plainti......
-
Watrous v. Watrous, 3
...change in circumstances (see, Matter of Streit v Streit, supra, at 644; Wight v Wight, 232 A.D.2d 844, 845, supra; cf., Sitler v Sitler, 266 A.D.2d 202; Cameron v Cameron, 238 A.D.2d Accordingly, Supreme Court did not err in granting defendant's motion to dismiss at the close of plaintiff's......
- Siegel v. Sweeney