Matter of Gedacht v. Agulnek
Decision Date | 24 November 2009 |
Docket Number | 2009-05687. |
Parties | In the Matter of MICHAEL G. GEDACHT, Appellant, v. KAREN S. AGULNEK, Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order dated May 28, 2009, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
A parent seeking downward modification of a child support obligation has the burden of establishing a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances (see Matter of Fowler v Rivera, 40 AD3d 1093, 1094 [2007]; Matter of Prisco v Buxbaum, 275 AD2d 461 [2000]). In order to meet that burden, a party seeking a downward modification based on a loss of employment must submit evidence demonstrating that he or she has diligently sought to obtain employment commensurate with that party's earning capacity (see Matter of Muselevichus v Muselevichus, 40 AD3d 997, 998 [2007]; Matter of Yepes v Fichera, 230 AD2d 803, 804 [1996]; Matter of Meyer v Meyer, 205 AD2d 784 [1994]; see also Matter of Davis v Davis, 197 AD2d 622, 623 [1993]).
Here, the unsubstantiated conclusory allegations of the father that he diligently sought employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience were insufficient to meet his burden (see Matter of Yepes v Fichera, 230 AD2d at 804; Barson v Barson, 32 AD3d 872, 873 [2006]). Therefore, the Support Magistrate properly denied the father's petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation (see Matter of Muselevichus v Muselevichus, 40 AD3d at 999; Matter of Yepes v Fichera, 230 AD2d at 804), and the Family Court properly denied the father's objections to so much of the order of the Support Magistrate as denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rolko v. Intini
...v. Riendeau, 95 A.D.3d at 892, 943 N.Y.S.2d 215 ; Peterson v. Peterson, 75 A.D.3d 512, 513, 904 N.Y.S.2d 500 ; Matter of Gedacht v. Agulnek, 67 A.D.3d 1013, 1013, 890 N.Y.S.2d 76 ). Thus, the Family Court properly denied the father's objections to the Support Magistrate's finding that he wa......
-
Lindsay v. Lindsay-Lewis, 2017–00071
...v. Riendeau, 95 A.D.3d 891, 943 N.Y.S.2d 215 ; Matter of Peterson v. Peterson, 75 A.D.3d 512, 904 N.Y.S.2d 500 ; Matter of Gedacht v. Agulnek, 67 A.D.3d 1013, 890 N.Y.S.2d 76 ).The father's remaining contention is without merit.Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father's obje......
-
Peterson v. Peterson
...that he or she has diligently sought to obtain employment commensurate with that party's earning capacity" ( Matter of Gedacht v. Agulnek, 67 A.D.3d 1013, 1013, 890 N.Y.S.2d 76; see Matter of Muselevichus v. Muselevichus, 40 A.D.3d 997, 998-999, 836 N.Y.S.2d 661; Matter of Yepes v. Fichera,......
-
Scotti v. Scotti
...were insufficient to meet his burden ( see Matter of Peterson v. Peterson, 75 A.D.3d 512, 513, 904 N.Y.S.2d 500; Matter of Gedacht v. Agulnek, 67 A.D.3d 1013, 890 N.Y.S.2d 76; Matter of Yepes v. Fichera, 230 A.D.2d at 804, 646 N.Y.S.2d 533). Therefore, the Support Magistrate properly denied......