O'Gorman v. O'Gorman

• Decision Date: 12 November 2014
• Docket Number: 2013-10666 (Docket Nos. F-3564-12/12A, F-3564-12/12B, F-3564-12/13C
• Citation: 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07666,996 N.Y.S.2d 182,122 A.D.3d 743
• Parties: In the Matter of Sarah O'GORMAN, respondent, v. John O'GORMAN, appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of John O'Gorman, appellant, v. Sarah O'Gorman, respondent. (Proceeding No. 2).
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

122 A.D.3d 743

996 N.Y.S.2d 182

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07666

In the Matter of Sarah O'GORMAN, respondent

v.John O'GORMAN, appellant. (Proceeding No. 1)

In the Matter of John O'Gorman, appellant

v.Sarah O'Gorman, respondent. (Proceeding No. 2).

2013-10666 (Docket Nos. F-3564-12/12A, F-3564-12/12B, F-3564-12/13C

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

Nov. 12, 2014.

Kamaras & Scibetta, PLLC, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Philip L. Kamaras of counsel), for appellant.

Annette G. Hasapidis, South Salem, N.Y., for respondent.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, ROBERT J. MILLER, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.

Opinion

In related child support proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Woods, J.), entered October 29, 2013, as denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Krahulik, S.M.), dated August 1, 2013, as, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition for an upward modification of his child support obligation as set forth in the parties' judgment of divorce and to require him to pay his pro rata share of the college expenses of the parties' oldest child.

ORDERED that the order entered October 29, 2013, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The substantial increase in the father's income, plus the mother's evidence of specific increased expenses related to the parties' children, warranted an upward modification of the father's child support obligation based upon a substantial change in circumstances (see Matter of Ryan v. Levine, 80 A.D.3d 767, 916 N.Y.S.2d 780 ; McMahon v. McMahon, 19 A.D.3d 464, 798 N.Y.S.2d 446 ; Matter of Elia v. Elia, 299 A.D.2d 358, 358, 749 N.Y.S.2d 176 ; Matter of Staffanell v. Staffanell, 220 A.D.2d 751, 751–752, 633 N.Y.S.2d 74 ). Further, under the circumstances of this case, the Support Magistrate providently exercised her discretion in determining that the father should pay a pro rata share of the expenses for parties' oldest son to attend an out-of-state public university (see Domestic Relations Law § 240[1–b][c][7] ; see generally Matter of Thompson v. Malcolm, 71 A.D.3d 1154, 1154–1155, 896 N.Y.S.2d 901 ; Matter of Niewiadomski v. Jacoby, 61 A.D.3d 871, 872, 878 N.Y.S.2d 388 ; Matter of French v. French, 13 A.D.3d 624, 787 N.Y.S.2d 115 ; Chan v. Chan, 267 A.D.2d 413, 414, 701 N.Y.S.2d 114 ).

The father's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review.