Taylor v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 12 April 2011 |
| Citation | 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 03049,920 N.Y.S.2d 419,83 A.D.3d 815 |
| Parties | Janet TAYLOR, respondent,v.Ian Ross TAYLOR, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
83 A.D.3d 815
920 N.Y.S.2d 419
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 03049
Janet TAYLOR, respondent,
v.
Ian Ross TAYLOR, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
April 12, 2011.
[920 N.Y.S.2d 420]
Winter & Grossman, PLLC, Garden City, N.Y. (Jerome B. Winter and Robert S. Grossman of counsel), for appellant.Cohen Hennessey Bienstock & Rabin, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Patricia E. Hennessey of counsel), for respondent.WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
[83 A.D.3d 815] In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated August 1, 2005, the defendant former husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered June 29, 2010, which, after a hearing, inter alia, denied his motion for a downward modification of his maintenance and child support obligations, as provided in a stipulation of settlement dated July 14, 2005, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce, and granted that branch of the cross motion of the plaintiff former wife which was to hold him in contempt for failure to pay maintenance arrears.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by adding to the provision thereof holding the defendant in contempt after the words “and past due support arrears to plaintiff” the words, “and that the defendant former husband's conduct was calculated to, or actually did, defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights and remedies of the plaintiff former wife;” as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff former wife.
The parties were married and have four children. In 2004, the plaintiff former wife commenced this action for a divorce [83 A.D.3d 816] against the defendant former husband. In 2005, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement, which provided, inter alia, that the plaintiff would have custody of the children, and that the defendant would pay maintenance and child support in an agreed-upon amount. The stipulation also provided that the defendant waived his right to seek any downward modification of his maintenance obligation until August 1, 2012, “excluding an unforeseen, unanticipated catastrophic event, that so negatively impacts the Husband's health or earning capacity as to result in ‘extreme hardship’ to him as that term is set forth in [Domestic Relations Law] § 236(B)(9)(b).”...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
El-Dehdan v. El-Dehdan
...734, 607 N.Y.S.2d 111), but an omission of the finding may be supplied on appeal where the record supports it ( see Taylor v. Taylor, 83 A.D.3d 815, 817, 920 N.Y.S.2d 419; Biggio v. Biggio, 41 A.D.3d 753, 839 N.Y.S.2d 527; Lopez v. Ajose, 33 A.D.3d 976, 977, 824 N.Y.S.2d 113). The element o......
-
Newmexico v. R.G.
...the movant must demonstrate that the offending party's failure to obey the terms of the order was willful. See Taylor v. Taylor, 83 A.D.3d 815, 920 N.Y.S.2d 419 (2d Dept.2011). Finally, the moving party must show that all less drastic remedies have been exhausted or would be ineffectual. Se......
-
In the Matter of Debbie Levine–seidman v. Seidman
...v. Marrale, 44 A.D.3d 773, 843 N.Y.S.2d 407; Matter of Talty v. Talty, 42 A.D.3d at 547, 840 N.Y.S.2d 114; see also Taylor v. Taylor, 83 A.D.3d 815, 920 N.Y.S.2d 419; Sofia v. Sofia, 162 A.D.2d 594, 556 N.Y.S.2d 778). Moreover, he failed to show that his ability to provide support had chang......
- Senande v. Carrion