Zinkiewicz v. Zinkiewicz, 222 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Zinkiewicz v. Zinkiewicz, 222 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Morrissey v. Morrissey
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Notably, “a maintenance obligation arising from a separation agreement will not be modified absent a showing of extreme hardship” (Haydock v Haydock, 237 AD2d 748, 750 [1997]). 3 Under the circumstances herein, to be entitled to a hearing concerning reducing maintenance, the movant must present a prima facie showing of extreme hardship (see Barden v Barden, 245 AD2d 695, 696 [1997]; Matter of Zinkiewicz v Zinkiewicz, 222 AD2d 684, 685 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lewis v. Lewis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Absent a prima facie demonstration of entitlement to a downward modification, the party seeking modification has no right to a hearing (see Miller v Miller, 18 AD3d 629 [2005]; Mishrick v Mishrick, supra; Matter of Zinkiewicz v Zinkiewicz, 222 AD2d 684, 685 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Miller v. Miller
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Absent a prima facie case establishing entitlement to a downward modification, the party seeking modification has no right to a hearing (see Mishrick v Mishrick, supra; Lloyd v Lloyd, 226 AD2d 816 [1996]; Zinkiewicz v Zinkiewicz, 222 AD2d 684, 685 [1995]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Ronald J. Zinkiewicz
v.
Gloria J. Zinkiewicz
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 29, 1995.
222 A.D.2d 684
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

—In a proceeding for downward modification of maintenance, the husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated April 1, 1994, as denied the petition without a hearing.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court correctly found that the husband failed to make out a prima facie case of entitlement to modification[*685] of the maintenance provisions of the parties’ separation agreement, which was incorporated but not merged in their judgment of divorce. The husband failed to establish that the continued enforcement of the maintenance provisions would create an extreme hardship for him (see, e.g., Didley v Didley, 194 AD2d 7, 10; Katz v Katz, 188 AD2d 827; Lewis v Lewis, 183 AD2d 875; Wells v Wells, 130 AD2d 487; Pintus v Pintus, 104 AD2d 866; Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]).

The Supreme Court properly denied the husband’s petition without holding an evidentiary hearing, as his sole allegations — that the rising cost of living had diminished his profits from his otherwise flourishing business, and that his former wife no longer needed his support because she had just received a settlement in a personal injury lawsuit — do not warrant a hearing (see, e.g., Praeger v Praeger, 162 AD2d 671; Gerringer v Gerringer, 152 AD2d 652; Nordhauser v Nordhauser, 130 AD2d 561). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.