Ashmore v. Ashmore

• Decision Date: 13 February 2014
• Citation: 981 N.Y.S.2d 427,114 A.D.3d 712,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 00955
• Parties: Kelly L. ASHMORE, respondent, v. Benjamin J. ASHMORE, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

114 A.D.3d 712

981 N.Y.S.2d 427

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 00955

Kelly L. ASHMORE, respondent,

v.Benjamin J. ASHMORE, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Feb. 13, 2014.

Benjamin J. Ashmore, Sr., Ramsey, New Jersey, named herein as Benjamin J. Ashmore, appellant pro se.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated June 30, 2011, the defendant appeals (1) from a money judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Henderson, Ct. Atty. Ref.), entered November 2, 2011, which, in effect, upon an order of the same court dated September 27, 2011, granting the plaintiff's motion for an award of child support arrears and denying the defendant's motion, inter alia, for a downward modification of his child support obligation, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $28,116.91, (2) from an order of the same court (Prus, J.), dated June 19, 2012, which denied that branch of the defendant's second motion which was for a downward modification of his child support obligation, and (3) from an order of the same court (Prus, J.), dated July 26, 2012, which denied the defendant's motion to reject the report of a referee dated April 30, 2012, recommending that the defendant be held in civil contempt for certain violations of the judgment of divorce and that the plaintiff receive a money judgment in the amount of specified arrears, and confirmed the report.

ORDERED that the money judgment is modified, on the law and the facts, by reducing the principal sum of child support arrears awarded to the plaintiff from $28,116.91 to $26,491.91; as so modified, the money judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ORDERED that the orders dated June 19, 2012, and July 26, 2013, are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

As the party seeking a downward modification of the child support provision of a prior judgment, the defendant had the burden of establishing “a substantial change in circumstances” (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B][9][b][2][ii] ). “Although a parent's loss of employment may constitute a change of circumstances warranting a downward modification where he or she has diligently sought reemployment, the proper amount of support payable is determined not by a parent's current economic situation, but by a parent's assets and earning powers” (Matter of Yepes v. Fichera, 230 A.D.2d 803, 804, 646 N.Y.S.2d 533 [citation omitted]; see Matter of Freedman v. Pogust, 77 A.D.3d 833, 909 N.Y.S.2d 139;Matter of D'Altilio v. D'Altilio, 14 A.D.3d 701, 789 N.Y.S.2d 270;Beard v. Beard, 300 A.D.2d 268, 269, 751 N.Y.S.2d 304). Thus, a parent seeking downward modification of a child support obligation must submit competent proof that the change in circumstance was not of his or her own making and that the parent thereafter made a good-faith effort to obtain employment commensurate with his or her qualifications and experience ( see Matter of Riendeau v. Riendeau, 95 A.D.3d 891, 892, 943 N.Y.S.2d 215;Matter of Uher v. Uher, 88 A.D.3d 732, 930 N.Y.S.2d 468;Matter of Scotti v. Scotti, 82 A.D.3d 1107, 918 N.Y.S.2d 891;Matter of Marrale v. Marrale, 44 A.D.3d 773, 776, 843 N.Y.S.2d 407;Matter of Fowler v. Rivera, 40 A.D.3d 1093, 1094, 834 N.Y.S.2d 873;Matter of Muselevichus v. Muselevichus, 40 A.D.3d 997, 999, 836 N.Y.S.2d 661;Matter of Terjesen v. Terjesen, 29 A.D.3d 705, 814 N.Y.S.2d 714;Matter of Heyward v. Goldman, 23 A.D.3d 468, 469, 805 N.Y.S.2d 628;Matter of D'Altilio v. D'Altilio, 14 A.D.3d 701, 789 N.Y.S.2d 270).

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's first motion which was for a downward modification of his child support obligation. The only evidence he submitted relating to his unemployment showed that his employmentwas terminated “for poor performance and failure to follow direction,” and he submitted no evidence of any efforts to obtain subsequent employment. Furthermore, the record supports the Supreme Court's denial of that branch of his second motion which was for a downward modification on the ground that the defendant failed to establish that he diligently searched for employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience ( see Matter of Riendeau v. Riendeau, 95 A.D.3d at 892, 943...