From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Stover v. Goegel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 20, 1995
213 A.D.2d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

March 20, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner sought to vacate an income execution served by his former wife for support payment arrears alleging that it was issued based on "a mistake of fact" (see, CPLR 5241 [e]). Critical to his arguments on appeal is his assertion that the divorce decree underlying the income execution was modified by the Family Court, Queens County to decrease his alimony obligation and that he had met the obligation as modified. However, although the modification of a divorce decree is a valid basis upon which to challenge an income execution (see, Malin v Malin, 172 A.D.2d 723; Zuckerman v. Zuckerman, 154 A.D.2d 666), the petitioner's argument suffers from a fundamental flaw.

A challenge to the issuance of an income execution is a special proceeding that, absent an issue of fact, may be decided summarily (see, CPLR 5241 [e]; Matter of Bahar v Schwartzreich, 204 A.D.2d 441; Matter of Jones v. Marcy, 135 A.D.2d 887). The burden of proof is on the petitioner (see, Keegan v. Keegan, 204 A.D.2d 606; Blackman v. Blackman, 131 A.D.2d 801; Matter of Jones v. Marcy, supra). Here, the only proof offered by the petitioner was the hearsay affirmation of his attorney. Indeed, a properly authenticated copy of the alleged order of modification was never proffered, despite the fact that its existence and effect was disputed. Accordingly, the issue is whether there has been a failure of proof (see, Wagner v Derecktor, 306 N.Y. 386; Hunter v. New York, Ontario W.R.R. Co., 116 N.Y. 615; 57 N.Y. Jur 2d, Evidence and Witnesses, § 16). We agree with the Supreme Court that the petitioner has failed to meet his most basic evidentiary burden of proving the existence of the modification order. Thus, the court did not err by deciding the proceeding summarily against him.

We have examined the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Thompson and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Stover v. Goegel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 20, 1995
213 A.D.2d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Matter of Stover v. Goegel

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ALBERT STOVER, Appellant, v. LAURA GOEGEL, Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 20, 1995

Citations

213 A.D.2d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
624 N.Y.S.2d 51

Citing Cases

Neumann v. Hercz

The plaintiff had the opportunity to allege a mistake of fact within 15 days of being served with the IWO,…

Matter of Eisenstadt v. Eisenstadt

We agree with the wife's contention that the issue of the amount and propriety of the arrears allegedly owed…