From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Taylor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 16, 1998
251 A.D.2d 175 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 16, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Fern Fisher-Brandveen, J.).


The motion court properly granted defendant wife a judgment for arrears in maintenance pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 244 Dom. Rel., instead of requiring her to commence a plenary action alleging breach of the parties' 1986 modification of their 1972 separation agreement. There is no question that the parties' 1972 separation agreement was "incorporated by reference" into their divorce judgment, as contemplated by Domestic Relations Law § 244, and that the 1972 separation agreement permitted written modifications thereto such as the one executed by the parties in 1986 ( see, Enck v. Enck, 228 A.D.2d 999). There is also no question that, as the motion court found, the 1986 document was intended by the parties to modify the husband's maintenance obligation under the 1972 separation agreement.

Also proper was the motion court's determination that plaintiff husband had not demonstrated good cause for his failure to apply for relief from his maintenance obligation prior to the accrual of arrears, and, accordingly, that any such relief should be prospective only ( see, Soba v. Soba, 213 A.D.2d 472, 473; Benjamin v. Benjamin, 70 A.D.2d 813, 814). Finally, the motion court's referral of plaintiff husband's request for downward modification of his maintenance obligation to a Referee was correct, since issues of fact were raised by his averments indicating that he had access to trust and investment income.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.


Summaries of

Taylor v. Taylor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 16, 1998
251 A.D.2d 175 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Taylor v. Taylor

Case Details

Full title:STANLEY W. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. NINA TAYLOR, Respondent

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

Date published: Jun 16, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 175 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
674 N.Y.S.2d 334

Citing Cases

Schaff v. Schaff

So much of the order as directed a conference, and thereafter, if necessary, a hearing, did not dispose of…

Bukovinsky v. Bukovinsky

Initially, we note that Supreme Court specifically declined to decide the merits of plaintiff's motion with…