Smith v. Smith
| Decision Date | 06 June 1991 |
| Citation | 571 N.Y.S.2d 127,174 A.D.2d 818 |
| Parties | Andrea P. SMITH, Appellant, v. Douglas W. SMITH, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Kingsley, Towne and McLenithan, P.C. (Thomas A. Snyder, of counsel), Albany, for appellant.
Thomas R. Cioffi, Troy, for respondent.
Before WEISS, J.P., and YESAWICH, LEVINE, MERCURE and HARVEY, JJ.
WEISS, Justice Presiding.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Cheeseman, J.), entered June 4, 1990 in Albany County, which denied plaintiff's motion for an upward modification of child support.
On February 17, 1983, a Supreme Court order increased the monthly child support payments originally provided in the January 11, 1979 judgment of divorce between the parties from $400 to $600. In the instant motion, plaintiff contends that significant changes have occurred since the 1983 order in that one child, age 20, who has been in a two-year community college, intends to transfer to a State university, and the youngest child, now age 17, who is in high school with a B+ average, plans to attend college. She further contends that defendant's salary has increased substantially since the divorce and the 1983 modification, and is in excess of $100,000 a year. Supreme Court denied the motion, finding that plaintiff failed to establish either a significant change of circumstances or a special circumstance warranting court-directed payment of college expenses.
On this appeal, plaintiff contends that Supreme Court erred in rendering a decision without conducting an evidentiary hearing. We disagree. Provisions for child support in a judgment or order may be modified upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances including financial hardship (Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][9][b]. Entitlement to an evidentiary hearing, however, requires that the party seeking the modification present genuine issues of fact as to whether a substantial change in circumstances has occurred. Upon such showing the court must then conduct a hearing to determine whether modification is warranted (see, Hofmeister v. Hofmeister, 120 A.D.2d 802, 803, 501 N.Y.S.2d 544).
Here, plaintiff has failed to make the requisite showing. She has made conclusory allegations that defendant's income has increased and exceeds $100,000 a year. However, defendant has factually demonstrated through his W-2 income tax forms that, while his 1983 income from wages was in excess of $135,000 due to a shift in employment, his 1989 earnings were less than $84,000 and continue at that level. Both parties have remarried and their households have comparable incomes. In addition, defendant has a child by his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scholet v. Newell
...with an evidentiary hearing and dismiss the petition (see, Trainor v. Trainor, 188 A.D.2d 461, 590 N.Y.S.2d 910; Smith v. Smith, 174 A.D.2d 818, 571 N.Y.S.2d 127). Here, respondent's modification petition is based upon, inter alia, the child's summer-time earnings, a college grant that was ......
-
Trainor v. Trainor
...a genuine issue of fact (see generally, Wyser-Pratte v. Wyser-Pratte, 66 N.Y.2d 715, 496 N.Y.S.2d 991, 487 N.E.2d 901; Smith v. Smith, 174 A.D.2d 818, 571 N.Y.S.2d 127; Praeger v. Praeger, 162 A.D.2d 671, 557 N.Y.S.2d 394; Gerringer v. Gerringer, 152 A.D.2d 652, 543 N.Y.S.2d 734; Senzer v. ......
-
Lunman v. Lomanto
...was $32,000 annually and her total household income of $82,203 was comparably higher than that of respondent (compare, Smith v. Smith, 174 A.D.2d 818, 571 N.Y.S.2d 127 [parties' respective household incomes were comparable] ). Thus, to the extent that it can be said that respondent's income......
-
L.M. v. B.M.
...must allege a specific factual basis to support a prima facie case, and conclusory statements are insufficient. Smith v. Smith, 174 A.D.2d 818, 571 N.Y.S.2d 127 (3d Dep't 1991) ; O'Neill v. O'Neill, 109 A.D.2d 829, 486 N.Y.S.2d 351 (2d Dep't 1985). The application must contain specific fina......