Flanigan v. Smyth

Citation90 A.D.3d 1107,933 N.Y.S.2d 759,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08699
PartiesIn the Matter of Thomas E. FLANIGAN, Appellant, v. Bonnie Jean SMYTH, Respondent.
Decision Date01 December 2011
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08699
90 A.D.3d 1107
933 N.Y.S.2d 759

In the Matter of Thomas E. FLANIGAN, Appellant,
Bonnie Jean SMYTH, Respondent.

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

Dec. 1, 2011.

[933 N.Y.S.2d 760]

Mandel Clemente, P.C., North Greenbush (Linda A. Mandel Clemente of counsel), for appellant.



[90 A.D.3d 1107] Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Albany County (M. Walsh, J.), entered March 31, 2010, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 4, for modification of a prior child support order.

The parties, who were never married, are the parents of one child (born in 2000) and, pursuant to an order entered in 2004, petitioner (hereinafter the father) was required to, among other things, pay child support in the amount of $1,750 per month. This amount reflected a downward deviation from the Child Support Standards Act ( see Family Ct. Act § 413), the application of which would have resulted in a presumptive support amount of $2,833 per month based upon the father's yearly income of $207,890. In 2007, the father unsuccessfully sought a downward modification of the support amount on the basis that, through no fault of his own, he was no longer employed. In dismissing the petition, by order entered in March 2008, Family Court determined that, although the father had lost his employment and made a reasonable search for new employment, he had nevertheless failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances warranting a reduction in his support obligation. Specifically, the court found that the father was possessed of sufficient means and ability to continue to provide the current rate of support, despite his unemployment, considering that he had more than $2 million in investment assets and $100,000 in a checking account. Thereafter, Family Court apparently adjusted the father's support obligation to $1,962 per month pursuant to a cost of living order.

The father commenced the instant proceeding in May 2009, again seeking a downward modification of his support obligation on the basis of his continued unemployment. Following a hearing, the Support Magistrate determined that the father had not established that there had been a change in circumstances since his previous unsuccessful attempt to modify the support order. The father filed objections to the findings of fact of the Support...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • People v. Allen
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 1 Diciembre 2011
    ...People v. Gonzalez, 88 N.Y.2d 289, 296, 644 N.Y.S.2d 673, 667 N.E.2d 323 [1996] ). The deputy testified that he stopped defendant's [933 N.Y.S.2d 759] vehicle because he saw bright white light emanating from the tail light, which he believed was a violation of a statute that requires vehicl......
  • Schenectady Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Hakeem N. (In re Jamaica M.)
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 1 Diciembre 2011
    ...the children. Finally, inasmuch as respondent did not appeal from the dispositional order, his arguments relating to the propriety of [90 A.D.3d 1107] Family Court's disposition are not properly before us ( see [934 N.Y.S.2d 563] Matter of Rebecca KK., 40 A.D.3d 1195, 1196 n., 834 N.Y.S.2d ......
  • Mark P. v. Teresa P.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 10 Septiembre 2012
    ...such obligations should be modified. See,Domestic Relations Law § 240[1–b][f] [1]; Family Court Act § 413[1][F][1]; Flanigan v. Smyth, 90 A.D.3d 1107, 933 N.Y.S.2d 759 (3d Dept.2011). Here, Plaintiff's current, albeit reduced, income in addition to his $5.5 million in liquid assets proves m......
  • Cranston v. Horton
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 18 Octubre 2012
    ...challenge to the calculation of that reduced amount, we find no reason to disturb that finding ( see Matter of Flanigan v. Smyth, 90 A.D.3d 1107, 1108, 933 N.Y.S.2d 759 [2011];Matter of Phelps v. La Point, 284 A.D.2d 605, 609 n. 5, 725 N.Y.S.2d 461 [2001] ). We also decline to interfere wit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT