Chariff v. Carl
| Decision Date | 04 March 1993 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Barbara J. CHARIFF, Appellant, v. Clifford H. CARL, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Marya C. Young, Binghamton, for appellant.
Rodney A. Richards, Binghamton, for respondent.
Before WEISS, P.J., and LEVINE, MERCURE, MAHONEY and HARVEY, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Kepner Jr., J.), entered March 30, 1992, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, to modify a previous order of child support.
The parties, divorced in 1981, have two children which were the subject of a 1983 Family Court order of support. That order provided for payment by respondent of $75 per week, together with provision for medical, dental and prescription expenses. That determination was based in part upon a finding that respondent's total income in 1982 was less than $8,000.
By petition dated August 13, 1990, respondent sought downward modification of his child support obligation because Wendy, his oldest daughter, reached the age of 21. Petitioner cross-petitioned for an upward modification, alleging that respondent's current income exceeded $150,000 and that the cost of care for Julie, the younger child, had increased significantly in the eight years following the earlier order and was expected to increase further. Family Court granted respondent's petition, but failed to make any determination of the amount of support to be paid for Julie and dismissed petitioner's cross petition, finding that she had submitted only evidence of respondent's increased income but failed to show Julie's current needs or other change in circumstances. Petitioner appeals from the dismissal of her petition. Petitioner contends that the dramatic increase in respondent's income alone is indeed sufficient for a modification of child support. She further contends that the granting of relief to respondent for a downward modification requires the application of the Child Support Standards Act (see, Family Ct. Act § 413).
State law provides for child support based upon the reasonable needs of the child and the means of the parents (see, Family Ct. Act § 413; see also, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. [Wandel] v. Segarra, 78 N.Y.2d 220, 226, 573 N.Y.S.2d 56, 577 N.E.2d 47). Child support is not a one-sided obligation placed upon a single parent, but rather an evaluation of the means and responsibilities of both parents and the needs and best interest of the child (see, Tessler v. Siegel, 59 A.D.2d 846, 847, 399 N.Y.S.2d 218). A substantial improvement in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Connor-Gang v. Munoz
...an evaluation of the means and responsibilities of both parents and the needs and best interest of the child” (Matter of Chariff v. Carl, 191 A.D.2d 795, 796, 594 N.Y.S.2d 377 ). Here, contrary to the father's contention, the evidence adduced at the hearing regarding, among other things, th......
-
Milton v. Tormey-Milton
...evaluation of the means and responsibilities of both parents and the needs and best interests of the child (see Matter of Chariff v. Carl, 191 A.D.2d 795, 796, 594 N.Y.S.2d 377 ). A parent's inability to secure new work after losing employment may constitute a substantial and unanticipated ......
-
Sorrentino v. Sorrentino
...his income in 1991 which is, in and of itself, a sufficient ground to sustain an increase in child support (see, Matter of Chariff v. Carl, 191 A.D.2d 795, 796, 594 N.Y.S.2d 377). Respondent's next objection centers on the Hearing Examiner's application of the CSSA. She found, based on the ......
-
Gadalinska v. Ahmed
...an evaluation of the means and responsibilities of both parents and the needs and best interest of the child” ( Matter of Chariff v. Carl, 191 A.D.2d 795, 796, 594 N.Y.S.2d 377). Contrary to the Support Magistrate's conclusion, the father's petition was sufficient to state a cause of action......