From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Richard K. v. Deborah K.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 12, 2017
154 A.D.3d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

10-12-2017

In re RICHARD K., Petitioner–Appellant, v. DEBORAH K., Respondent–Respondent.

David Zaslavsky, New York, for appellant. Deborah A. K., respondent pro se.


David Zaslavsky, New York, for appellant.

Deborah A. K., respondent pro se.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about July 6, 2016, which denied petitioner's objections to a Support Magistrate's order dismissing, after a hearing, his petition for a downward modification of his child and spousal support obligations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.The court providently exercised its discretion in determining that petitioner failed to show a substantial change in circumstances to warrant a downward modification of his child support obligation after he was convicted of a federal crime and disbarred (see Matter of Boden v. Boden, 42 N.Y.2d 210, 213, 397 N.Y.S.2d 701, 366 N.E.2d 791 [1977] ; Matter of Karagiannis v. Karagiannis, 73 A.D.3d 1064, 1065, 901 N.Y.S.2d 669 [2d Dept 2010] ). That his income was reduced due to his incarceration was but one factor that the court, in its discretion, could consider (see Family Court Act § 451[3][a] ). The court also properly considered petitioner's credibility with respect to the income shown on his tax returns and his overall financial situation.

Petitioner further failed to demonstrate the extreme hardship necessary to obtain modification of the maintenance obligations contained in the parties' stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into the parties' divorce judgment (see Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][9][b] ; Matter of Cohen v. Seletsky, 142 A.D.2d 111, 118–119, 534 N.Y.S.2d 688 [2d Dept 1988] ). A husband's volitional actions which result in his unemployment, including incarceration preventing any employment, do not constitute such extreme hardship (see Fabrikant v. Fabrikant, 62 A.D.3d 585, 586, 879 N.Y.S.2d 431 [1st Dept.2009] ).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

TOM, J.P., RENWICK, ANDRIAS, SINGH, MOULTON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Richard K. v. Deborah K.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 12, 2017
154 A.D.3d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Richard K. v. Deborah K.

Case Details

Full title:In re RICHARD K., Petitioner–Appellant, v. DEBORAH K.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 12, 2017

Citations

154 A.D.3d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
154 A.D.3d 489
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 7173

Citing Cases

Palmer v. Spadone-Palmer

She cites to the husband's testimony that the investment might be worth as much as $400,000, but although he…

Burgio v. Burgio

In New York, modification of a maintenance obligation is permissible only when compliance with the order…