As to defendant’s first argument, the Appellate Division stated that reconsideration is limited to situations where the court based its decision on a “palpably incorrect or irrational basis, or the court failed to consider the significance of probative, competent evidence.” On appeal, defendant argued that the judge erred by (1) denying his motion for reconsideration and (2) deciding his motion without a plenary hearing. The judge stated that defendant’s first motion was essentially the same as the second and did not assert any new facts. The judge granted her motion and denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff filed a cross-motion to enforce her rights under the MSA and to compel the payment of arrears. The judge ultimately reneged on his order setting a plenary hearing, however, because he agreed that defendant did not meet his burden of proving changed circumstances. Plaintiff also asserted that defendant did not meet his burden of demonstrating changed circumstances.
The judge also ordered a plenary hearing, which the ex-wife (plaintiff) contended was improper because the relief requested in the motion and cross-motion were denied. Defendant informed the court of his full-time employment and requested a modification of alimony and child support based on his earning approximately $50,000 less than he was making at his previous job.Ī different family court judge ordered the parties to attempt settlement and denied all other requested relief. Soon after the second motion, he secured a new job. The judge also found that defendant’s narrow job search failed to show substantial changes meriting a downward modification of his child support, and that such a modification would not be in the child’s best interests.ĭefendant then sought reconsideration of his initial motion and filed a new motion to suspend life insurance and college tuition obligations on the basis that he was still unemployed. Specifically, defendant limited his job search to his chosen field near Albany, New York, and earning minimum salaries of $100,000. The family court judge denied his motion, reasoning that he had not done his due diligence in applying for new jobs that would justify changed circumstances under Lepis. He then filed a motion to terminate alimony and modify child support. Lepis (a case addressing whether a party can modify their alimony obligation).ĭefendant remained unemployed for twenty months after the JOD. Regarding modification, however, the MSA stated that defendant must satisfy the criteria set forth in Lepis v. The MSA provided that if defendant, who lost his job prior to the JOD, was not employed within six months from the date of the divorce, he could file a motion to modify his alimony and child support obligations. The parties in this case signed a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) that was incorporated into their Final Judgment of Divorce (JOD).
In Sowa, the ex-husband (defendant) appealed from an order denying his motion for reconsideration to modify his alimony obligation. Sowa, a recent case out of the Appellate Division, provides a glimpse of how a court might decide your motion for reconsideration. Our experienced matrimonial attorneys can assist you in filing motions for reconsideration. Reconsideration should only be utilized if (1) the court has based its decision upon a palpably incorrect basis, or (2) the court did not consider or failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent, evidence.
4:49-2 provides that a party may file a motion for rehearing or reconsideration seeking to alter or amend a judgment or order, and the court ultimately has broad discretion as to whether it will grant this motion. Therefore, a court will rarely grant a plenary hearing if a party asserts substantially the same facts as in their original motion. Sometimes, a party will also demand a plenary hearing to argue the issues raised in the motion for reconsideration, but a court will only grant a plenary hearing where there is a genuine issue of material fact. For any unhappy party, a motion for reconsideration is always one option. Frequently, decisions by family court judges leave one or both parties unhappy. The adversarial nature of family law litigation is often exacerbated by the emotions experienced by parties going through a divorce.
0 kommentar(er)
