Oelsner v. Heppler
| Decision Date | 25 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2018–12698,Docket No. F–20529–15 |
| Citation | 181 A.D.3d 916,122 N.Y.S.3d 330 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Robert C. OELSNER, Appellant, v. Megan L. HEPPLER, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
181 A.D.3d 916
122 N.Y.S.3d 330
In the Matter of Robert C. OELSNER, Appellant,
v.
Megan L. HEPPLER, Respondent.
2018–12698
Docket No. F–20529–15
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Submitted—February 13, 2020
March 25, 2020
Robert C. Oelsner, Hopkinton, Rhode Island, appellant pro se.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kathy G. Bergmann, J.), dated September 14, 2018. The order denied the father's objections to an order of the same
court (Barbara Lynaugh, S.M.) dated June 29, 2018, which, after a hearing, and upon findings of fact also dated June 29, 2018, dismissed the father's cross petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.
ORDERED that the order dated September 14, 2018, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The respondent, Megan L. Heppler (hereinafter the mother), and the petitioner, Robert C. Oelsner (hereinafter the father), are the unmarried parents of one child. Pursuant to the terms
of a so-ordered agreement, the father is obligated to pay the sum of $1,000 per month in child support. In December 2015, the mother filed a petition seeking to enforce the terms of the parties' agreement with respect to the father's child support obligation. In January 2016, the father filed a cross petition seeking a downward modification of his child support obligation. After a hearing, a Support Magistrate, inter alia, dismissed the father's cross petition, finding that the father failed to meet his burden of establishing a substantial change in circumstances. The father filed objections to the Support Magistrate's determination, and the Family Court remitted the matter for further proceedings. A continued hearing was held upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gerety v. Gerety
...Matter of Baumgardner v. Baumgardner, 126 A.D.3d 895, 896–897, 6 N.Y.S.3d 90 ; see Family Ct Act § 451[3][a] ; Matter of Oelsner v. Heppler, 181 A.D.3d 916, 917, 122 N.Y.S.3d 330 ). "In determining whether there has been a change in circumstances warranting modification of a parent's child ......
-
Giraldo v. Fernandez
...the application for modification with that existing at the time the order sought to be modified was issued" ( Matter of Oelsner v. Heppler, 181 A.D.3d 916, 917, 122 N.Y.S.3d 330 ; see Matter of Spaights v. Muller, 147 A.D.3d 768, 46 N.Y.S.3d 207 ; Matter of Baumgardner v. Baumgardner, 126 A......
-
In re Giraldo
...the time of the application for modification with that existing at the time the order sought to be modified was issued" (Matter of Oelsner v Heppler, 181 A.D.3d 916, 917; see Matter of Spaights v Muller, 147 A.D.3d Matter of Baumgardner v Baumgardner, 126 A.D.3d 895). Here, the mother demon......
-
Sacchetti v. Sacchetti
...burden of establishing the existence of a substantial change in circumstances warranting the modification" ( Matter of Oelsner v. Heppler, 181 A.D.3d 916, 917, 122 N.Y.S.3d 330 ). "In determining a child support obligation, a court need not rely on a party's own account of his or her financ......