Opinion
July 2, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaFauci, J.H.O.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The parties herein had executed an agreement in December of 1980 which was subsequently incorporated in, but not merged with, the judgment of divorce. The burden was upon the husband to demonstrate that the continued enforcement of his maintenance obligation would create an "extreme hardship" (Pintus v. Pintus, 104 A.D.2d 866, 867-868; see also, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]).
The husband is a printer who had been employed for many years by the same company. When the firm went out of business, he found himself without employment. After futile attempts to gain similar employment, the 64-year-old husband started collecting his pension, and characterized his election to start collecting a pension as his forced retirement.
Under the particular circumstances at bar, we cannot say that the husband did not exhaust all his avenues for obtaining employment for which he was qualified. However, for the most part, the defendant husband found himself without a job through no fault of his own. He made a sufficient showing to justify downward modification of his maintenance obligation from $250 to $200 per week (see, Battista v. Battista, 132 A.D.2d 639).
We note that the plaintiff wife's claim that her needs have increased was not substantiated. She submitted no medical evidence and her assertions as to medical expenses were conclusory and speculative.
We have considered the parties' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and O'Brien, JJ., concur.