Opinion
March 31, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.).
Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Special Term correctly held that the defendant did not demonstrate good cause why he failed to apply for relief from the judgment directing payment of alimony and child support prior to the accrual of arrears of $57,500. Thus, in light of the defendant's unilateral decision to withhold all support and alimony payments subsequent to April 1982, allegedly based on his financial inability to pay, the court was required to grant leave to enter a judgment for arrears (see, Domestic Relations Law § 244; Matter of La Duke v. La Duke, 110 A.D.2d 930, 932). There was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant for reduction or suspension of such payments (cf. Malta v. Malta, 87 A.D.2d 988). In addition, we find that the defendant's September 1982 cross motion for, inter alia, relief from the alimony and support provisions of the judgment of divorce in response to an earlier application brought by the plaintiff for leave to enter a money judgment for previously accrued arrears, cannot be considered an application for relief from the arrears, which are the subject of the motion before us, inasmuch as that cross motion was denied without prejudice to renewal upon proper papers, and the defendant never renewed his application (see, Coveleski v. Coveleski, 93 A.D.2d 924). Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.