Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005

Steinberg v. Steinberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 7, 2005

15 A.D.3d 388; 790 N.Y.S.2d 63

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Armstrong v. Armstrong (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Rogers v. Rogers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Rockwell v. Rockwell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Williams v. Nassau County Medical Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Michael Stachnik Enterprises, Inc. v. Hereford Development Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Peycke v. Newport Media Acquisition II, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Tower Insurance v. T & G Contracting Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Mountains Realty Corp. v. Gelbelman (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 judgment entered August 13, 1991, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J), dated August 19, 2002, as denied that branch of her motion which was for reinstatement and upward modification of the plaintiffs spousal support obligation, and (2) an order of the same court dated January 16, 2003, as denied that branch of her motion which was for leave to renew.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant failed to demonstrate that the continued enforcement of the spousal support provision, which was part of the stipulation of settlement that was incorporated but not merged into their judgment of divorce, would create an extreme hardship (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Ameen v Ameen, 294 AD2d 319, 320 [2002]; Pozza v Pozza, 260 AD2d 360 [1999]; Lewis v Lewis, 183 AD2d 875 [1992]; Praeger v Praeger, *389162 AD2d 671, 673 [1990]; Pintus v Pintus, 104 AD2d 866, 867 [1984]; cf. Heller u Heller, 287 AD2d 487 [2001]; Sass v Sass, 276 AD2d 42 [2000]).

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for leave to renew that branch of her prior motion which was for reinstatement and upward modification of the plaintiffs spousal support obligation, as the facts proffered in support thereof would not have changed the outcome (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; Kingston v Brookdale Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 4 AD3d 397 [2004]). Ritter, J.E, Krausman, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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