In the Matter of Alexander Kalarickal v. Kalarickal

Decision Date09 November 2011
Citation932 N.Y.S.2d 366,89 A.D.3d 846,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08151
PartiesIn the Matter of Alexander KALARICKAL, appellant,v.Leena KALARICKAL, respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

89 A.D.3d 846
932 N.Y.S.2d 366
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08151

In the Matter of Alexander KALARICKAL, appellant,
v.
Leena KALARICKAL, respondent.

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

Nov. 9, 2011.


Alexander Kalarickal, Yonkers, N.Y., appellant pro se.

[89 A.D.3d 846] In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Horowitz, J.), entered September 28, 2010, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Jordan, S.M.), entered May 26, 2010, which, after a hearing, in effect, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation as set forth in a stipulation of settlement dated Match 12, 2009, which was incorporated but not merged into the parties' judgment of divorce.

[89 A.D.3d 847] ORDERED that the order entered September 28, 2010, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly found that the father failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances warranting a downward modification of his child support obligation ( see Matter of Boden v. Boden, 42 N.Y.2d 210, 212–213, 397 N.Y.S.2d 701, 366 N.E.2d 791; Matter of Peterson v. Peterson, 75 A.D.3d 512, 904 N.Y.S.2d 500). The father's child support obligation is not necessarily determined by his current financial condition but, rather, by his ability to provide support, as well as his assets and earning powers ( see Basile v. Wiggs, 82 A.D.3d 921, 920 N.Y.S.2d 103;

[932 N.Y.S.2d 367]

Beard v. Beard, 300 A.D.2d 268, 269, 751 N.Y.S.2d 304; Matter of Fleischmann v. Fleischmann, 195 A.D.2d 604, 601 N.Y.S.2d 16). Here, while the father presented evidence of an unanticipated loss of employment, there was also evidence that he is nonetheless possessed of sufficient means to provide support at the level ordered ( see Matter of Talty v. Talty, 42 A.D.3d 546, 840 N.Y.S.2d 114).

The father's remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father's objections to the order which, in effect, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

SKELOS, J.P., HALL, LOTT and ROMAN, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Schwaber v. Schwaber
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 31, 2012
    ...sufficient means to provide child support at the level set by the parties in their settlement agreement ( see Matter of Kalarickal v. Kalarickal, 89 A.D.3d 846, 932 N.Y.S.2d 366; Jelfo v. Jelfo, 81 A.D.3d 1255, 1257, 916 N.Y.S.2d 427; Matter of Fragola v. Alfaro, 45 A.D.3d 684, 686, 845 N.Y......
  • Riendeau v. Riendeau
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 1, 2012
    ...921, 921, 920 N.Y.S.2d 103, quoting Matter of Mera v. Rodriguez, 74 A.D.3d 974, 974, 904 N.Y.S.2d 83; see Matter of Kalarickal v. Kalarickal, 89 A.D.3d 846, 847, 932 N.Y.S.2d 366; Matter of Muselevichus v. Muselevichus, 40 A.D.3d 997, 998, 836 N.Y.S.2d 661). A parent's loss of employment ma......
  • Lore v. Sclafani
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 5, 2014
    ...114 A.D.3d 685979 N.Y.S.2d 8402014 N.Y. Slip Op. 00667In the Matter of Stacy LORE, appellant,v.Louis SCLAFANI, respondent.Supreme Court, ... ...
  • In the Matter of Dana H. (anonymous) v. (anonymous)
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 9, 2011
    ...issues, we agree with the Family Court that this was not a change in circumstances, as the evidence from the original custody hearing [89 A.D.3d 846] established that they had behavioral and psychological issues when the June 23, 2008, custody order was issued. While the children's in-schoo......
  • 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