Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: John GUINAN, appellant, v. Lorraine HALL f/k/a Lorraine Guinan, respondent.
In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner former husband appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), dated March 9, 1998, as denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Herold, H.E.), dated October 17, 1997, as, after a hearing, granted his application for a downward modification of maintenance payments only to the extent of reducing his monthly maintenance obligation from $2,500 to $2,255.16.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Family Court properly considered his 1993 and 1996 Federal income tax returns in determining the extent to which a downward modification of his maintenance obligation was warranted. 1993 was the last full tax year before the parties entered into a stipulation settling the issue of maintenance in their matrimonial action, and 1996 was the last full tax year before the petitioner filed the instant application for downward modification. Accordingly, comparison of these tax returns represented an appropriate basis for measuring the reduction in income alleged by the petitioner (see, Klapper v. Klapper, 204 A.D.2d 518, 611 N.Y.S.2d 657; Giambattista v. Giambattista, 154 A.D.2d 920, 545 N.Y.S.2d 957). Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court did not err in reducing the petitioner's maintenance obligation by less than the full amount requested (see, Matter of Courtney v. Brownstein, 228 A.D.2d 810, 643 N.Y.S.2d 757; Mangino v. Mangino, 216 A.D.2d 369, 628 N.Y.S.2d 531).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 25, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)