Preischel v. Preischel
| Decision Date | 28 May 1993 |
| Parties | Matter of Gary PREISCHEL, Appellant, v. Ellen PREISCHEL, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Damon & Morey by James Kane, Jr., Buffalo, for appellant.
Kenneth P. Bernas, West Seneca, for respondent.
Before CALLAHAN, J.P., and GREEN, LAWTON, DOERR and BOOMER, JJ.
Family Court erred in dismissing petitioner's application for a downward modification in child support. Where the applicant demonstrates that there has been an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances, the court may modify the support obligations of a written separation agreement (Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][9][b]; see, Matter of Boden v. Boden, 42 N.Y.2d 210, 213, 397 N.Y.S.2d 701, 366 N.E.2d 791; Schelter v. Schelter, 159 A.D.2d 995, 552 N.Y.S.2d 477; Epel v. Epel, 139 A.D.2d 488, 526 N.Y.S.2d 592).
The record establishes that petitioner, through no fault of his own, lost his job when his employer encountered financial problems and closed its plant. It further establishes that petitioner made diligent efforts to find a new job, including sending out over 200 resumes, answering numerous want ads, and registering at approximately 15 employment agencies. Petitioner was unemployed for a period of approximately 7 1/2 months, but nevertheless paid respondent $60 per week in child support out of his unemployment benefits. When he found a job, he filed an amended petition and notified the court.
We conclude that the Hearing Examiner's determination that petitioner demonstrated an unanticipated change in circumstances is fully supported by the record. Thus, Family Court erred in granting respondent's objections to that determination and finding that petitioner failed to present a prima facie case of changed circumstances to warrant a reduction of support (see, Dowd v. Dowd, 178 A.D.2d 330, 577 N.Y.S.2d 395).
Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, objections denied and order of Hearing Examiner reinstated.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meyer v. Meyer
... ... 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 ... ...
-
Fanizzi v. Delforte-Fanizzi
... ... establishes that he was terminated through no fault of his own and that he diligently 84 N.Y.S.3d 652sought reemployment (see Matter of Preischel v. Preischel, 193 A.D.2d 1118, 11181119, 598 N.Y.S.2d 642 [4th Dept. 1993] ; see also Matter of Smith v. McCarthy, 143 A.D.3d 726, 727728, 38 ... ...
-
Feld v. Feld
... ... v. Anonymous V., 180 A.D.2d 457, 458, 580 N.Y.S.2d 17; cf., McSparron v. McSparron, 209 A.D.2d 835, 619 N.Y.S.2d 163; Matter of Preischel v. Preischel, 193 A.D.2d 1118, 598 N.Y.S.2d 642). Supreme Court properly held that plaintiff's sale of the seat was a voluntary divesture (see, ... ...
-
Morena v. Morena
... ... Fitts, 56 N.Y.2d 132, 451 N.Y.S.2d 68, 436 N.E.2d 518; Matter of Glinski v. Glinski, 199 A.D.2d 994, 606 N.Y.S.2d 468; Matter of 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 supports the determination that the ... ...