Rolko v. Intini
| Decision Date | 06 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | 2014-07903, (Docket No. F-16081-12) |
| Parties | In the Matter of John ROLKO, Jr., appellant, v. Gina INTINI, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
128 A.D.3d 705
9 N.Y.S.3d 101
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03848
In the Matter of John ROLKO, Jr., appellant
v.
Gina INTINI, respondent.
2014-07903, (Docket No. F-16081-12)
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 6, 2015.
The Guttman Law Group, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Robin N. Guttman of counsel), for appellant.
L. PRISCILLA HALL, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, ROBERT J. MILLER, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
Opinion
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Bernard Cheng, J.), dated July 15, 2014. The order denied the father's objections to an order of that court (Aletha Fields, S.M.), dated April 30, 2014, which, after a hearing, dismissed his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation, with prejudice.
ORDERED that the order dated July 15, 2014, is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof, in effect, denying the father's objection to the words “with prejudice” in the order dated April 30, 2014, and substituting therefor a provision granting that objection and thereupon substituting the words “without prejudice” for the words “with prejudice” in the order dated April 30, 2014; as so modified, the order dated July 15, 2014, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A “party seeking modification of an order of child support has the burden of establishing the existence of a substantial change in circumstances warranting the modification” (Matter of
Baumgardner v. Baumgardner, 126 A.D.3d 895, 896–897, 6 N.Y.S.3d 90 ; see Matter of Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 114 A.D.3d 798, 798, 980 N.Y.S.2d 531 ; Matter of Suyunov v. Tarashchansky, 98 A.D.3d 744, 745, 950 N.Y.S.2d 399 ). “A parent's loss of employment may constitute a substantial change in circumstances” (Matter of Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 114 A.D.3d at 798, 980 N.Y.S.2d 531 ; see Matter of Suyunov v. Tarashchansky, 98 A.D.3d at 745, 950 N.Y.S.2d 399 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Vogel v. Vogel
-
Cato v. Cato
...the burden of establishing the existence of a substantial change in circumstances warranting the modification’ " (Matter of Rolko v. Intini, 128 A.D.3d 705, 706, 9 N.Y.S.3d 101, quoting Matter of Baumgardner v. Baumgardner, 126 A.D.3d 895, 896–897, 6 N.Y.S.3d 90 ; see Matter of Lagani v. Li......
-
Tomassi v. Suffolk Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
...769, 771, 919 N.Y.S.2d 30, quoting Matter of Marrale v. Marrale, 44 A.D.3d 773, 775, 843 N.Y.S.2d 407 ; see Matter of Rolko v. Intini, 128 A.D.3d 705, 706, 9 N.Y.S.3d 101 ; Matter of Mandelowitz v. Bodden, 68 A.D.3d 871, 874, 890 N.Y.S.2d 634 ). “ ‘[I]n determining whether there has been a ......
-
Rodriguez v. Starks
...pursuant to Family Court Act § 451" ( Matter of Kolodny v. Perlman, 143 A.D.3d 818, 821, 38 N.Y.S.3d 613 ; see Matter of Rolko v. Intini, 128 A.D.3d 705, 707, 9 N.Y.S.3d 101 ).The mother's remaining contentions are without merit. LASALLE, P.J., HINDS–RADIX, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ.,...