From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clark v. Clark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 20, 2001
280 A.D.2d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted January 17, 2001

February 20, 2001.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated January 14, 1981, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), entered May 3, 2000, which denied his motion to terminate his obligation to pay alimony.

Sari M. Friedman, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Mace H. Greenfield and Howard Knispel of counsel), for appellant.

Hayward, Parker O'Leary, Middletown, N.Y. (Guy J. Hayward of counsel), for respondent.

Before: O'BRIEN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, GOLDSTEIN and SMITH, JJ., concur.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(9)(b) authorizes the modification of the terms of a separation agreement, such as the one at issue, which was incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce upon a showing of extreme hardship (see, Mishrick v. Mishrick, 251 A.D.2d 558; Luftig v. Luftig, 239 A.D.2d 225; Sheridan v. Sheridan, 225 A.D.2d 604; cf., Streit v. Streit, 237 A.D.2d 662). The defendant failed to meet this burden. We reject the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court should have conducted a hearing on his motion (see, Mishrick v. Mishrick, supra).


Summaries of

Clark v. Clark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 20, 2001
280 A.D.2d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Clark v. Clark

Case Details

Full title:MARILYNN CLARK, RESPONDENT, v. VINCENT CLARK, APPELLANT

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

Date published: Feb 20, 2001

Citations

280 A.D.2d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
720 N.Y.S.2d 796

Citing Cases

Miller v. Miller

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof (1) granting those…

In the Matter of Ross v. Ross

Under such circumstances, the father must demonstrate "extreme hardship" (Matter of Cohen v. Seletsky, 142…