Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998

Howfield v. Howfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 4, 1998

250 A.D.2d 573; 671 N.Y.S.2d 988; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4934

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

M.M. v. R.M. (New York Supreme Court, Westchester County 2024)
Dembitzer v. Rindenow (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Jenkins v. McKinney (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Miller v. Miller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
O' Connor v. Curcio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Tekel v. Martone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Henry v. Henry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Youssef v. Cantelmo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Giordano v. Giordano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Zenz v. Zenz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Whitman v. Whitman (NYC Family Court 1999)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated October 21, 1992, the plaintiff former husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated March 6, 1997, as denied those branches of his motion which were to modify the child support provisions of the judgment of divorce and stipulation of settlement which was incorporated but not merged in the judgment, and to cancel any arrears which may have accrued since July 1, 1992.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court did not err in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to modify the child support provisions in the judgment of divorce and the stipulation of settlement which was incorporated but not merged in the judgment, by cancelling further support obligations. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate either that the agreement was unfair or inequitable when entered into, or that there had been an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances and that he had a concomitant showing of need to justify the modification (see, Merl v Merl, 67 NY2d 359, 362; Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 213; Ruggerio v Ruggerio, 173 AD2d 595).

*574Furthermore, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 244, the court could not cancel the child support arrears since, under that statute, there can be no modification of child support for any period prior to the initiation of an application for such modification (see, Domestic Relations Law § 244; Matter of Dox v Tynon, 90 NY2d 166, 173-174; Scheinkman, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law § 244, at 752; Scheinkman, Supplementary Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law § 244, 1997-1998 Interim Supp Pamph, at 556).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.