Zeidman v. Zeidman
| Decision Date | 09 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2019–10658,Index No. 53205/12 |
| Parties | Frady ZEIDMAN, appellant, v. Natan ZEIDMAN, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
202 A.D.3d 893
158 N.Y.S.3d 888 (Mem)
Frady ZEIDMAN, appellant,
v.
Natan ZEIDMAN, respondent.
2019–10658
Index No. 53205/12
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Submitted—December 21, 2021
February 9, 2022
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY (Audra J. Soloway, Amy L. Barton, Samantha A. Weinberg, and Naomi D. Morris of counsel), for appellant.
Mark Diamond, New York, NY, for respondent.
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, ROBERT J. MILLER, LARA J. GENOVESI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated April 21, 2017, and a related child support proceeding that was transferred to the Supreme Court, Kings County, and consolidated with the matrimonial action for disposition, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Debra Silber, J.), dated June 27, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the defendant's petition to modify the child support provisions of the judgment of divorce to the extent of directing him to pay $25 per month in child support retroactive to July 10, 2018, and denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to adjudge the defendant in civil contempt for failure to pay child support.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
The parties were married in 2005 and have four children of the marriage. On or about April 21, 2017, upon a decision made after trial, a judgment of divorce was entered, inter alia, requiring the defendant to pay the plaintiff $871.58 per month in child support. The Supreme Court had been unable to ascertain the defendant's actual income and, as such, determined the defendant's monthly child support obligation based upon the children's needs and their standard of living (see Domestic Relations Law § 240[1–b][k] ).
On or about July 10, 2018, the defendant filed a petition in Family Court seeking to modify the child support provisions of the judgment of divorce. By order to show cause dated February 19, 2019, the plaintiff moved in the Supreme Court, inter
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Williams v. Halstead
-
Wenig Saltiel, LLP v. Bozeman
...(see El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d 19, 28-29 [2015]; Madigan v Berkeley Capital, LLC, 205 A.D.3d 900, 905 [2022]; Zeidman v Zeidman, 202 A.D.3d 893, 894 [2022]; Matter of Binong Xu v Sullivan, 155 A.D.3d 1032 [2017]). The burden then shifted to defendant to refute that showing, or to off......
-
People v. Merisier
...and Arieh Schulman of counsel), for respondent.ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, ROBERT J. MILLER, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.158 N.Y.S.3d 888 DECISION & ORDER202 A.D.3d 835 Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (William Miller, J.), both rend......