From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Neill v. O'Neill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 1985
109 A.D.2d 829 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

March 18, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.).


Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The parties were divorced by judgment dated June 17, 1983. Pursuant to the final judgment of divorce and the stipulation entered into between the parties which survived the judgment, the defendant wife was given custody of the couple's two infant children. Plaintiff was to pay child support in the amount of $115 per week. When infant son Michael became emancipated, this amount was to be decreased to $100 per week. In November 1983, plaintiff began to pay $100 per week, alleging that Michael had a job and was, therefore, emancipated. Defendant moved, inter alia, for a money judgment for arrears, and plaintiff cross-moved, inter alia, for downward modification of his support obligations.

Plaintiff's affidavits, containing conclusory statements as to Michael's status, failed to create a genuine issue of fact as to Michael's alleged emancipation ( Levinson v. Levinson, 97 A.D.2d 458). Therefore, Special Term properly denied plaintiff's cross motion for a downward modification of his support obligation without an evidentiary hearing ( Gagliardi v. Gagliardi, 18 A.D.2d 788). Gibbons, J.P., Bracken, O'Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

O'Neill v. O'Neill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 1985
109 A.D.2d 829 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

O'Neill v. O'Neill

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD O'NEILL, Appellant, v. MAUREEN O'NEILL, Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 18, 1985

Citations

109 A.D.2d 829 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Stirber v. Stirber

The defendant failed to demonstrate any substantial change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a downward…

Readick v. Readick

However, the court erred in failing to conduct a hearing to determine whether THE parties ` child was…