Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

D'Alesio v. D'Alesio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 9, 2002

300 A.D.2d 340; 751 N.Y.S.2d 774

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

Rooney v. Rooney (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Rooney v. Rooney (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Kammerer v. Kammerer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Fein v. Gilchrist (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Matter of Nannan L. v. Stephen L. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Matter of Camarda v. Charlot (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Schwartz v. Schwartz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Matter of Hackett v. Hackett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Matter of Nicotra v. Nicotra (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
MatterofHoylevHoyle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Hoyle v. Hoyle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Hoyle v. Hoyle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Monroe v. Jordan-Monroe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Monroe v. Jordan-Monroe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Figueroa v. Herring (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Greene v. Holmes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Sannuto v. Palma-Sannuto (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Raich v. Raich (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)

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 a judgment entered May 4, 2000, the defendant former husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Berkowitz, J.), dated December 3, 2001, which, without a hearing, denied his cross motion for a downward modification of maintenance.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (9) (b) provides that upon the application of a party in a matrimonial action, the court *341may modify any prior order or judgment as to maintenance upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances. The party seeking the modification has the burden of establishing such a change in circumstances (see Klapper v Klapper, 204 AD2d 518, 519; Rosen v Rosen, 260 AD2d 361). In determining whether there was a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a downward modification, the change is to be measured by a comparison between the payor’s financial circumstances at the time of the motion for downward modification, and at the time of the divorce or, as the case may be, at the time that the order regarding the motion for downward modification is made (see Klapper v Klapper, supra).

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s cross motion for a downward modification of maintenance. The defendant did not meet his burden of establishing a change in circumstances, because he failed to offer competent evidence of his alleged mental illness or his inability to work. Moreover, because the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion without a hearing (cf. Schnoor v Schnoor, 189 AD2d 809). Florio, J.P., Feuerstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.