Meyer v. Meyer
| Decision Date | 27 June 1994 |
| Citation | 614 N.Y.S.2d 42,205 A.D.2d 784 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Michael MEYER, Respondent, v. Roberta MEYER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Alter & Alter, New York City (Stanley Alter, of counsel), for appellant.
Richard S. Candee, Yonktown Heights, for respondent.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and BALLETTA, COPERTINO and SANTUCCI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 for downward modification of child support, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered June 15, 1992, which denied her objections to an order of the same court (Mrsich, H.E.), entered April 23, 1992, which granted the father's petition and reduced child support to $50 per month.
ORDERED that the order entered June 15, 1992, is reversed, without costs or disbursements, the mother's objections to the order entered April 23, 1992, are sustained, the order entered April 23, 1992, is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County, for a new determination as to child support in accordance with the Child Support Standards Act (Family Court Act § 413), and for a determination of arrears, if any.
We agree with the Family Court that the father's loss of employment constituted a change of circumstances which warranted a downward modification of his child support obligation (see, Matter of Brescia v. Fitts, 56 N.Y.2d 132, 451 N.Y.S.2d 68, 436 N.E.2d 518; Glinski v. Glinski, 199 A.D.2d 994, 606 N.Y.S.2d 468; Preischel v. Preischel, 193 A.D.2d 1118, 598 N.Y.S.2d 642; Dowd v. Dowd, 178 A.D.2d 330, 577 N.Y.S.2d 395). The evidence in the record supports the Hearing Examiner's finding that the father lost his job through no fault of his own and had diligently sought reemployment in his field. The father's child support obligation of $1,650 a month was based on his annual salary of $110,000, and, at the time of the hearing, he was receiving unemployment insurance benefits.
Effective July 25, 1990, application of the guidelines in the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) (Family Court Act § 413) is mandatory, rather than permissive, in modification applications (see, Matter of Alice C. v. Bernard G.C., 193 A.D.2d 97, 602 N.Y.S.2d 623; Matter of Howard v. Howard, 186 A.D.2d 132, 587 N.Y.S.2d 950; Matter of Rathbun v. Winchell, 183 A.D.2d 948, 583 N.Y.S.2d 314; Family Court Act § 413[1][b][1]. There is nothing in the record to indicate that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ritchey v. Ritchey
...Conway, 79 A.D.3d 965, 912 N.Y.S.2d 700; Matter of Ketcham v. Crawford, 1 A.D.3d 359, 360–361, 767 N.Y.S.2d 47; Matter of Meyer v. Meyer, 205 A.D.2d 784, 614 N.Y.S.2d 42). Here, the defendant made a prima facie showing of a substantial unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances ......
-
Scotti v. Scotti
...40 A.D.3d 997, 998, 836 N.Y.S.2d 661; Matter of Yepes v. Fichera, 230 A.D.2d 803, 804, 646 N.Y.S.2d 533; Matter of Meyer v. Meyer, 205 A.D.2d 784, 614 N.Y.S.2d 42; see also Matter of Davis v. Davis, 197 A.D.2d 622, 623, 602 N.Y.S.2d 672). Here, the unsubstantiated conclusory allegations of ......
-
Conway v. Conway
...A.D.2d 645, 646, 753 N.Y.S.2d 106; see Matter of Ketcham v. Crawford, 1 A.D.3d 359, 360-361, 767 N.Y.S.2d 47; Matter of Meyer v. Meyer, 205 A.D.2d 784, 614 N.Y.S.2d 42). Here, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that he was diligently seeking employment. Furthermore, although......
-
Urbach v. Krouner
...... did not err in granting the petition and requiring that support be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the CSSA (see, Matter of Meyer v. Meyer, . Page 383. 205 A.D.2d 784, 614 N.Y.S.2d 42; Riseley v. Riseley, 173 A.D.2d 1103, 1104, 571 N.Y.S.2d 112). Respondent ......