COMSTOCK v. COMSTOCK

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated December 10, 2002, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated July 25, 2002, is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(9)(b), the Supreme Court may modify any prior order or judgment with respect to maintenance. The party seeking the modification has the burden of establishing the existence of a "substantial change in circumstances" warranting the modification ( Klapper v. Klapper, 204 A.D.2d 518; Rosen v. Rosen, 193 A.D.2d 661). Here, the defendant failed to meet that burden. His assertions concerning his current financial circumstances were not only unsubstantiated, but also vague and conclusory ( see Rosen v. Rosen, supra; Praeger v. Praeger, 162 A.D.2d 671).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

SANTUCCI, J.P., S. MILLER, GOLDSTEIN and COZIER, JJ., concur.