From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Benarroch v. Benarroch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 6, 1978
65 A.D.2d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)

Opinion

November 6, 1978


In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff wife appeals, as limited by her notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 30, 1976, as granted defendant's application to reduce his alimony and child support obligations. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, the first, second and fourth decretal paragraphs thereof are deleted and defendant's application to modify the judgment of divorce by reducing his alimony and child support obligations is denied. The action is remanded to Special Term for further proceedings on plaintiff's application for a wage assignment. Special Term abused its discretion when it modified the alimony and support provisions of the judgment of divorce in the absence of a showing by defendant that he had suffered a "`substantial change of circumstances'" (see Kover v Kover, 29 N.Y.2d 408, 413). Consequently, the original provisions for alimony and child support, as modified by this court, must remain in effect (see Benarroch v Benarroch, 55 A.D.2d 943). Special Term should reconsider plaintiff's application for a wage assignment in the light of our determination herein. Hopkins, J.P., Martuscello, Latham and Hawkins, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Benarroch v. Benarroch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 6, 1978
65 A.D.2d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)
Case details for

Benarroch v. Benarroch

Case Details

Full title:ARLENE BENARROCH, Appellant, v. LEON BENARROCH, Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 6, 1978

Citations

65 A.D.2d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)

Citing Cases

Passaro v. Passaro

Thus, he was granted sufficient relief by the court's discretionary elimination of alimony. Appellant did not…