From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gross v. Gross

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 14, 2005
15 A.D.3d 442 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2003-05573.

February 14, 2005.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated December 20, 2001, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Spolzino, J.), entered June 10, 2003, as, upon the denial of his motions for a downward modification of his child support obligations, is in favor of the defendant and against him in the principal sum of $58,969.10.

Before: H. Miller, J.P., Luciano, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

"Absent a showing of an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances, the support provisions of the agreement should not be disturbed" ( Matter of Boden v. Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 213). Moreover, where the application is one for downward modification of child support, such a change in circumstances must be substantial ( see Beard v. Beard, 300 AD2d 268). Here, the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of such a change. Therefore, the denial of his motions without first conducting hearings was proper ( see Roshevsky v. Roshevsky, 267 AD2d 293, 294; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 170 AD2d 585; Nordhauser v. Nordhauser, 130 AD2d 561, 562).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Gross v. Gross

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 14, 2005
15 A.D.3d 442 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Gross v. Gross

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY A. GROSS, Appellant, v. DEBORAH GROSS, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 14, 2005

Citations

15 A.D.3d 442 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
789 N.Y.S.2d 447

Citing Cases

Krup v. Fehr, 2009 NY Slip Op 51523(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 6/30/2009)

" (Gravlin v. Ruppert, 98 NY2d 1, 5 [2002]). It has also been recognized, however, that "the change in…

In the Matter of Kaplan v. Smith

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. "Absent a showing of an unanticipated and unreasonable change…