Berg v. Berg
Citation | 88 N.Y.S.3d 414,166 A.D.3d 766 |
Decision Date | 14 November 2018 |
Docket Number | Docket No. F–11977–14/14A,2017–08960 |
Parties | In the Matter of Michael Alan BERG, Appellant, v. Julie Sue BERG, Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
166 A.D.3d 766
88 N.Y.S.3d 414
In the Matter of Michael Alan BERG, Appellant,
v.
Julie Sue BERG, Respondent.
2017–08960
Docket No. F–11977–14/14A
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Submitted—September 18, 2018
November 14, 2018
Lisa Siano, Merrick, NY, for appellant.
Richman & Levine, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Ira W. Seligman of counsel), for respondent.
SHERI S. ROMAN, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Merik R. Aaron, J.), dated May 5, 2017. The order denied his objections to an order of the same court (Elizabeth A. Bloom, S.M.), dated October 14, 2016,
which, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his spousal maintenance and child support obligations under the parties' judgment of divorce.
ORDERED that the order dated May 5, 2017, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The parties were divorced by a judgment dated August 1, 2012, which set forth, inter alia, the father's obligations with respect to spousal maintenance and child support for the parties' daughter. In December 2014, the father commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 for a downward modification of those obligations, alleging that he had recently lost his job. Following a hearing, the Support Magistrate denied the father's petition. Thereafter, in an order dated May 5, 2017, the Family Court denied the father's objections to the Support Magistrate's order. The father appeals.
A party seeking a downward modification of his or her spousal maintenance and child support obligations set forth in a judgment of divorce must establish a substantial change in circumstances (see Family Ct Act §§ 466[c][ii] and 451[3][a] ; see also Isichenko v. Isichenko, 161 A.D.3d 833, 75 N.Y.S.3d 530 ). Loss of employment may constitute a substantial change in circumstances where the termination occurred...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oelsner v. Heppler
...assistance 122 N.Y.S.3d 333 of counsel will not be entertained absent extraordinary circumstances (see Matter of Berg v. Berg, 166 A.D.3d 766, 767, 88 N.Y.S.3d 414 ; Matter of Ferrara v. Ferrara, 52 A.D.3d 599, 600, 860 N.Y.S.2d 577 ). Here, the father failed to establish the existence of e......
-
Roberts v. Roberts, 2018–12186
...of divorce must establish a substantial change in circumstances (see Family Ct Act §§ 466[c][ii] ; 451[3][a]; Matter of Berg v. Berg, 166 A.D.3d 766, 88 N.Y.S.3d 414 ; Matter of Kolodny v. Perlman, 143 A.D.3d 818, 38 N.Y.S.3d 613 ). In support of his petition, the father failed to provide a......
-
Nimely v. Corneh
...( Matter of Evans v. White, 173 A.D.3d at 865, 100 N.Y.S.3d 547 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Berg v. Berg, 166 A.D.3d 766, 88 N.Y.S.3d 414 ). Here, the father failed to satisfy that burden (see Pathak v. Shukla, 164 A.D.3d 690, 691, 84 N.Y.S.3d 490 ).The father's remain......
-
Camaiore v. Farance
...in a child support order dated August 4, 2016 (see Matter of Evans v. White, 173 A.D.3d 864, 100 N.Y.S.3d 547 ; Matter of Berg v. Berg, 166 A.D.3d 766, 88 N.Y.S.3d 414 ).The father's remaining contentions are without merit. CHAMBERS, J.P., LEVENTHAL, DUFFY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.,...