You are here: / / SUPPORT MAGISTRATE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO VACATE MAINTENANCE ARREARS; THE...
,

SUPPORT MAGISTRATE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO VACATE MAINTENANCE ARREARS; THE FORMER HUSBAND DEMONSTRATED THE FORMER WIFE WAIVED HER RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS 16 YEARS BEFORE THE PETITION WAS BROUGHT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the former husband’s (appellant’s) objection to the support magistrate’s order that appellant pay maintenance arrears should have been granted. The support magistrate had terminated the former wife’s (respondent’s) right to maintenance payments but held she did not have the authority to vacate the arrears. The Second Department held respondent had waiver her right to maintenance payments years before and appellant was not obligated to pay the arrears:

… [P]ursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(9)(b), a prior judgment or order as to maintenance may be modified or annulled after the accrual of such arrears where “the defaulting party shows good cause for failure to make an application for relief from the judgment or order directing payment prior to the accrual of such arrears” … . …

The appellant demonstrated that in June 2001, the respondent waived her right to receive maintenance payments … . “A valid waiver requires no more than the voluntary and intentional abandonment of a known right which, but for the waiver, would have been enforceable'” … . “It may arise by either an express agreement or by such conduct or failure to act as to evince an intent not to claim the purported advantage” … . Here, the evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrated that after the appellant stopped paying maintenance beginning in June 2001 pursuant to the parties’ alleged oral agreement, the respondent did not make any written demands or otherwise move to enforce the maintenance provision of the parties’ judgment of divorce for a period of more than 16 years. Although a waiver “is not created by negligence, oversight, or thoughtlessness, and cannot be inferred from mere silence” … , the respondent’s conduct evinced an intent by her to abandon her right to maintenance payments and supported the appellant’s claim that she had orally agreed to terminate his maintenance obligation in June 2001 … . Matter of Makris v Makris, 2020 NY Slip Op 00139, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

You might also like
THE EVIDENCE IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS ONE OF THE ROBBERS WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT BUT DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
BANK’S EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS WRONG, THE RULING WAS CORRECT; THE ARRESTING OFFICER WHO LEARNED THE SUSPECT COULD NOT HAVE COMMITTED THE CRIME, BUT SAID NOTHING, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION FOR COSTS OF DEFENDING THE RELATED CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT.
PLAINTIFF’S TWO SEPARATE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS SHOULD BE TRIED TOGETHER BECAUSE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE INJURIES FROM THE FIRST ACCIDENT WERE EXACERBATED BY THE SECOND ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY DETAINED, ONCE THE PAT-DOWN SEARCH REVEALED DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE A WEAPON THE POLICE WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN REMOVING THE (STOLEN) WALLET FROM DEFENDANT’S POCKET AND SEARCHING IT; THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS UNDER THE STANDARD FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR (SECOND DEPT).
“General Supervision” of Work Site Did Not Trigger Liability Under Labor Law 241(6)
Measure of Damages for Taken Land Explained

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH THE CHILD WAS 17 AND HAD A LONG STANDING PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP... PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT SIGNATORIES TO CONTRACTS WHICH REQUIRED ARBITRATION OF WAGE-UNDERPAYMENT...