Riendeau v. Riendeau

Decision Date01 May 2012
Citation95 A.D.3d 891,943 N.Y.S.2d 215,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 03452
PartiesIn the Matter of Donna M. RIENDEAU, respondent, v. Michael P. RIENDEAU, appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Tor Jacob Worsoe, Jr., Holtsville, N.Y., for appellant.

Simonetti & Associates, Woodbury, N.Y. (Louis F. Simonetti of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffmann, J.), dated April 18, 2011, as denied his objection to so much of an order of the same court (Fields, S.M.), dated September 17, 2010, as, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

ORDERED that the order dated April 18, 2011, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

‘A parent seeking downward modification of a child support obligation has the burden of establishing a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances' ( Basile v. Wiggs, 82 A.D.3d 921, 921, 920 N.Y.S.2d 103, quoting Matter of Mera v. Rodriguez, 74 A.D.3d 974, 974, 904 N.Y.S.2d 83; see Matter of Kalarickal v. Kalarickal, 89 A.D.3d 846, 847, 932 N.Y.S.2d 366; Matter of Muselevichus v. Muselevichus, 40 A.D.3d 997, 998, 836 N.Y.S.2d 661). A parent's loss of employment may constitute a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances justifying a downward modification of child support where the termination occurred through no fault of the parent and the parent has diligently sought re-employment commensurate with his or her earning capacity ( see Matter of Bruckstein v. Bruckstein, 78 A.D.3d 695, 696, 910 N.Y.S.2d 176; Matter of Gedacht v. Agulnek, 67 A.D.3d 1013, 890 N.Y.S.2d 76; Matter of Muselevichus v. Muselevichus, 40 A.D.3d at 998, 836 N.Y.S.2d 661). Here, the Family Court properly determined that the father failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances warranting a downward modification of his child support obligation ( see Matter of Kalarickal v. Kalarickal, 89 A.D.3d at 847, 932 N.Y.S.2d 366). The father caused his own loss of employment by failing to meet his child support obligation, which resulted in his incarceration for a period of six months. In addition, the father's unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Ashmore v. Ashmore
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 13, 2014
    ...a good-faith effort to obtain employment commensurate with his or her qualifications and experience ( see Matter of Riendeau v. Riendeau, 95 A.D.3d 891, 892, 943 N.Y.S.2d 215;Matter of Uher v. Uher, 88 A.D.3d 732, 930 N.Y.S.2d 468;Matter of Scotti v. Scotti, 82 A.D.3d 1107, 918 N.Y.S.2d 891......
  • Gharachorloo v. Regeer
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 19, 2019
    ...887the parent has diligently sought re-employment commensurate with his or her earning capacity" ( Matter of Riendeau v. Riendeau, 95 A.D.3d 891, 892, 943 N.Y.S.2d 215 ; see Matter of Patscot v. Fisco, 166 A.D.3d at 982, 86 N.Y.S.3d 735 ; Matter of Gillison v. Penepent, 156 A.D.3d 697, 698,......
  • Rolko v. Intini
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 6, 2015
    ...parent and the parent has diligently sought re-employment commensurate with his or her earning capacity” (Matter of Riendeau v. Riendeau, 95 A.D.3d 891, 892, 943 N.Y.S.2d 215 ; see Matter of Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 114 A.D.3d at 798, 980 N.Y.S.2d 531 ; Ashmore v. Ashmore, 114 A.D.3d at 71......
  • Cato v. Cato
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 9, 2015
    ...his or her earning capacity’ " (Matter of Rolko v. Intini, 128 A.D.3d at 706, 9 N.Y.S.3d 101, quoting Matter of Riendeau v. Riendeau, 95 A.D.3d 891, 892, 943 N.Y.S.2d 215 ; see Matter of Rubenstein v. 22 N.Y.S.3d 461Rubenstein, 114 A.D.3d at 798, 980 N.Y.S.2d 531 ; Ashmore v. Ashmore, 114 A......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT