Legal Opinion
Sluyk v. Sluyk
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided October 17, 2012PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*888The defendant met his burden of proving that a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances warranted a reduction of his pendente lite support obligation (see generally Matter of Rodriguez v Mendoza-Gonzalez, 96 AD3d 766 [2012]; Matter of Riendeau v Riendeau, 95 AD3d 891 [2012]; Reback v Reback, 93 AD3d 652, 652-653 [2012]). However, given that the parties’ affidavits revealed the existence of genuine issues of fact as to the amount by which the defendant’s support obligation should be reduced, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing on that…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Schnoor v. SchnoorAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Riendeau v. RiendeauAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Rodriguez v. Mendoza-GonzalezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Muller v. MullerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Reback v. RebackAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Turco v. TurcoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Turco v. TurcoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014