Masten v. Masten
| Decision Date | 22 May 1989 |
| Citation | 541 N.Y.S.2d 566,150 A.D.2d 693 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Lorraine C. MASTEN, Respondent, v. Vincent MASTEN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Walter E. Anderocci, Brooklyn, for appellant.
Milgrim Thomajan & Lee P.C., New York City (Norman M. Block, of counsel), for respondent.
Before LAWRENCE, J.P., and KUNZEMAN, RUBIN and KOOPER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 for upward modification of the father's child support obligations, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Cognetta, J.), dated April 21, 1988, which, after a hearing, granted the petition.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
As we have recently noted, "[t]he Family Court has discretion to increase child support in cases where a petitioner can show a change in circumstances which warrants the modification in the best interest of the child" (Matter of Bruhn v. McCready, 138 A.D.2d 374, 376, 525 N.Y.S.2d 659). The Family Court properly exercised its discretion in reviewing the evidence adduced at the hearing and concluded that the petitioner had established the existence of changed circumstances warranting an upward modification of the appellant's child support obligations (see, Matter of Brescia v. Fitts, 56 N.Y.2d 132, 451 N.Y.S.2d 68, 436 N.E.2d 518; Matter of Michaels v. Michaels, 56 N.Y.2d 924, 926, 453 N.Y.S.2d 605, 439 N.E.2d 321). Further, in light of the existence of special circumstances, the Family Court properly considered the private school and college expenses of the parties' children in fashioning its award (see, Hirsch v. Hirsch, 142 A.D.2d 138, 145, 534 N.Y.S.2d 681; Jackson v. Jackson, 138 A.D.2d 455, 526 N.Y.S.2d 21; Kaplan v. Wallshein, 57 A.D.2d 828, 394 N.Y.S.2d 439). Finally, we note that the appellant failed to comply with Family Court Act § 424-a, in that, in response to the petitioner's application, he provided no documentation pertaining to his net worth. Since the appellant failed to disclose information critical to the assessment of his net worth, he is in no position to assert that the court erred in drawing inferences favorable to the petitioner with respect to the disputed financial issues (cf., Richter v. Richter, 131 A.D.2d 453, 455, 515 N.Y.S.2d 876).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards v. Edwards
...information, the Family Court may, in its discretion, draw inferences favorable to the opposing party ( cf. Matter of Masten v. Masten, 150 A.D.2d 693, 541 N.Y.S.2d 566), or deny the petition on the ground of insufficient evidence ( cf. Matter of Feng Lucy Luo v. Yang, 89 A.D.3d 946, 933 N.......
-
Commissioner of Social Services of City of New York on Behalf of Jacobs v. Currie
...pursuant to the Federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. In each case the Family Court relied on Matter of Masten v. Masten (150 A.D.2d 693, 541 N.Y.S.2d 566, lv. denied, 74 N.Y.2d 611, 546 N.Y.S.2d 555, 545 N.E.2d 869) and Katz v. Katz, 125 A.D.2d 549, 509 N.Y.S.2d 625, to ......
- Maldonado v. Coughlin
-
Hughes v. Serviss
...support obligations (see, Matter of Brescia v. Fitts, 56 N.Y.2d 132, 140-141, 451 N.Y.S.2d 68, 436 N.E.2d 518; Matter of Masten v. Masten, 150 A.D.2d 693, 541 N.Y.S.2d 566; Matter of Bruhn v. McCready, 138 A.D.2d 374, 376, 525 N.Y.S.2d ...