In a Decision – S.O. v. M.O. (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held:
The Appellate Division determined that disagreed with the trial court that husband violated a legal duty to seek more lucrative employment since husband had no control over the employer’s change in its bonus formula and had been employed at the same stable job.
The Appellate Division determined that Husband had worked in a stable job with the same employer for over twenty-five years and that Husband has no control over his employer's change in the bonus formula. The achievement of a bonus is not entirely within the ex-husband's personal control but depends upon his work unit's overall performance and profitability. Presumably his work colleagues would have incentives to achieve the bonuses even if, hypothetically, the ex-husband's incentives were somehow tempered by his duty to pay his ex-wife alimony and his desire to obtain modification. If another position with a different employer earning $200,000 were available to the ex-husband, taking such a new job would create a risk that it could be less secure and stable than the ex-husband remaining with his long-time employer of over twenty-five years.