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.
Steven STEDFELT, appellant, v. Diane M. STEDFELT, respondent.
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by foreign decree entered June 8, 1992, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oliver, J.), dated May 1, 1998, as denied his separate applications to change custody, for the appointment of a law guardian, and for a downward modification in his child support obligation, respectively.
ORDERED that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof denying the plaintiff's application for a downward modification of his child support obligation; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable to the plaintiff, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.
The plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that he was discharged from active duty in the Marine Corps due to his having manifested symptoms of multiple sclerosis, and that as a result, he has suffered a concomitant loss of income. The record presents viable questions of fact as to whether (1) the plaintiff's earing capacity has diminished because of his illness and his expenses now exceed his income, thereby constituting a substantial change of circumstances entitling him to a reduction in his child support obligation (see, Matter of King v. King, 193 A.D.2d 800, 598 N.Y.S.2d 278), or (2) as the defendant claims, the plaintiff has not suffered any loss in earning capacity, in spite of his illness, so that no reduction is warranted. Under these circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the plaintiff's application for a downward modification without a hearing (see, Schnoor v. Schnoor, 189 A.D.2d 809, 592 N.Y.S.2d 460; see generally, Aragona v. Cin Mar Developers, 250 A.D.2d 792, 673 N.Y.S.2d 202; Delman v. Misk, 205 A.D.2d 577, 614 N.Y.S.2d 25).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: February 22, 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)