Molner v. Molner

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael L. Katz, J.), entered August 17, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendant wife’s motion for a judgment on the husband’s spousal maintenance and child support arrears, and referred the matter to a special referee for a hearing on whether there had been a sufficient change of circumstances to warrant modification, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The court’s order was not dispositive on the relevant issues, but referred the matter for a hearing before a special referee. Thus, the husband was not required, as the wife suggests, to establish “extreme financial hardship” to warrant a hearing, *655 but to raise a "genuine question of fact” that this might be the case (Gordon v Gordon, 82 AD3d 509 [1st Dept 2011]; Sonkin v Sonkin, 137 AD3d 635, 636 [1st Dept 2016]). Given the husband’s explanation in the motions below about the massive and complex litigation surrounding his entities, the involuntary bankruptcy of his fund and the massive debts he faced, the court properly determined that there was at least a genu-iné issue of fact as to whether he was under extreme hardship and unable to sustain the hefty amounts owing under the parties’ agreement going forward (id.). We have considered the wife’s remaining contentions, and find them unavailing. Concur — Sweeny, J.P, Renwick, Andrias and Kahn, JJ.