From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Comstock v. Comstock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 3, 2003
1 A.D.3d 308 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-07879, 2003-00372

Submitted September 29, 2003.

November 3, 2003.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J.), dated July 25, 2002, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff's motion for support arrears and denied his cross motion for a downward modification of maintenance, and (2) an order of the same court dated December 10, 2002, which denied his motion for leave to reargue the motion and the cross motion.

Christopher Riley, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.

Allan J. Berke, New York, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated December 10, 2002, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated July 25, 2002, is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(9)(b), the Supreme Court may modify any prior order or judgment with respect to maintenance. The party seeking the modification has the burden of establishing the existence of a "substantial change in circumstances" warranting the modification ( Klapper v. Klapper, 204 A.D.2d 518; Rosen v. Rosen, 193 A.D.2d 661). Here, the defendant failed to meet that burden. His assertions concerning his current financial circumstances were not only unsubstantiated, but also vague and conclusory ( see Rosen v. Rosen, supra; Praeger v. Praeger, 162 A.D.2d 671).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

SANTUCCI, J.P., S. MILLER, GOLDSTEIN and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Comstock v. Comstock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 3, 2003
1 A.D.3d 308 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Comstock v. Comstock

Case Details

Full title:KAREN F. COMSTOCK, respondent, v. RICHARD H. COMSTOCK, JR., appellant

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

Date published: Nov 3, 2003

Citations

1 A.D.3d 308 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
766 N.Y.S.2d 587

Citing Cases

Szalapski v. Schwartz

The party seeking the modification bears the burden of proof. Comstock v. Comstock, 1 A.D.3d 308, 766…

Schneider v. Schneider

The plaintiff's motion, denominated as one for leave to renew, was not based upon new facts which were…