From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Guinan v. Hall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 25, 1999
265 A.D.2d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Argued September 21, 1999

October 25, 1999

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner former husband appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.).


ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Family Court properly considered his 1993 and 1996 Federal income tax returns in determining the extent to which a downward modification of his maintenance obligation was warranted. 1993 was the last full tax year before the parties entered into a stipulation settling the issue of maintenance in their matrimonial action, and 1996 was the last full tax year before the petitioner filed the instant application for downward modification. Accordingly, comparison of these tax returns represented an appropriate basis for measuring the reduction in income alleged by the petitioner (see, Klapper v. Klapper, 204 A.D.2d 518 ; Giambattista v. Giambattista, 154 A.D.2d 920 ). Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court did not err in reducing the petitioner's maintenance obligation by less than the full amount requested (see, Matter of Courtney v. Brownstein, 228 A.D.2d 810 ; Mangino v. Mangino, 216 A.D.2d 369 ).

O'BRIEN, J.P., SANTUCCI, ALTMAN, and KRAUSMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Guinan v. Hall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 25, 1999
265 A.D.2d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter of Guinan v. Hall

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JOHN GUINAN, appellant, v. LORRAINE HALL f/k/a LORRAINE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 25, 1999

Citations

265 A.D.2d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
697 N.Y.S.2d 159

Citing Cases

Rooney v. Rooney

Here, the defendant did not satisfy his prima facie burden of establishing a substantial change in…