Galati v. GalatiGalati v. Galati
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The appellant‘s petition sought a downward modification of his maintenance obligation under a judgment of divorce subject
The Support Magistrate‘s findings are entitled to great deference (see Matter of Barrett v Pickett, 5 AD3d 591, 592 [2004]). Although the Support Magistrate committed numerical errors in her factual findings, she correctly found that the appellant‘s income had decreased from $138,761 in 2000 to $101,475 in 2003. The court properly determined that this did not constitute extreme hardship (see e.g. Pintus v Pintus, 104 AD2d 866, 868 [1984]). Miller, J.P., Crane, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.