Smith v. McCarthy
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Citation | 143 A.D.3d 726,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06504,38 N.Y.S.3d 588 |
| Decision Date | 05 October 2016 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Thomas B. SMITH II, appellant, v. Keri Elizabeth McCARTHY, respondent. |
143 A.D.3d 726
38 N.Y.S.3d 588
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06504
In the Matter of Thomas B. SMITH II, appellant,
v.
Keri Elizabeth McCARTHY, respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct. 5, 2016.
Katherine Ryan, Melville, N.Y., for appellant.
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, and FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
Appeal by the father from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Merik R. Aaron, J.), dated August 14, 2015. The order denied the father's objection to an order of that court (Lisa M. Williams, S.M.), dated June 19, 2015, which, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.
ORDERED that the order dated August 14, 2015, is reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, the father's objection is granted, the order dated June 19, 2015, is vacated, the petition is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Nassau County, for a new hearing and determination of the amount of the father's reduced child support obligation.
The parties in this proceeding are the parents of a four-year-old boy (hereinafter the subject child), who resides in New York with his mother. The father resides in Pennsylvania with his four other children from his marriage to another woman. In an order dated October 21, 2013, the Family Court directed the father to pay support in the sum of $1,406 per month for the subject child. In March 2015, the father filed a petition seeking a downward modification of his support obligation for the subject child alleging, as a substantial change in circumstances, that his income had been reduced due to a loss of employment.
At the hearing on his modification petition, the father presented documentary evidence which showed that on March 18, 2013, he was laid off from his employment with Talon Air, where he had worked in the field of aviation electronics. Although in August of 2013 the father accepted a job in his field in New Castle, Delaware, he left that position shortly afterward because it was several hours away from his home in Pennsylvania, and his wife, who had commenced a divorce proceeding, refused
to relocate to Delaware with their four children. An October 31, 2013, order in the Pennsylvania divorce proceeding found that the father had made a diligent effort to obtain employment in the aviation electronics field, but there was no such work available locally. An email from an aviation recruitment company working with the father also stated that there were no aviation maintenance opportunities available for him within a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Poulos v. Chachere, 2017–10564
...obtain a position earning approximately $410 per week, which would yield approximately $22,000 per year (see Matter of Smith v. McCarthy, 143 A.D.3d 726, 727–728, 38 N.Y.S.3d 588 ; Matter of Holmes v. Holmes, 140 A.D.3d 1066, 1068, 32 N.Y.S.3d 658 ). The mother, who had been unemployed for ......
-
Parmenter v. Nash, 898
...child (see Matter of Dupree v. Dupree, 62 N.Y.2d 1009, 1010–1012, 479 N.Y.S.2d 491, 468 N.E.2d 673 [1984] ; Matter of Smith v. McCarthy, 143 A.D.3d 726, 727–728, 38 N.Y.S.3d 588 [2d Dept. 2016] ; see also Spencer v. Spencer, 298 A.D.2d 680, 680–681, 748 N.Y.S.2d 809 [3d Dept. 2002] ). As on......
-
Gillison v. Penepent, 2016–06825
...change in circumstances" (Matter of Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 114 A.D.3d 798, 798, 980 N.Y.S.2d 531;see Matter of Smith v. McCarthy, 143 A.D.3d 726, 727, 38 N.Y.S.3d 588 ). However, the proper amount of support is determined "not by the parent's current economic situation, but by the parent......
-
Pathak v. Shukla, 2015–12659
...798, 798, 980 N.Y.S.2d 531 ; see Matter of Gillison v. Penepent, 156 A.D.3d 697, 698, 66 N.Y.S.3d 293 ; Matter of Smith v. McCarthy, 143 A.D.3d 726, 727, 38 N.Y.S.3d 588 ). However, the proper amount of support is determined " ‘not by the parent's current economic situation, but by the pare......
-
Poulos v. Chachere, 2017–10564
...obtain a position earning approximately $410 per week, which would yield approximately $22,000 per year (see Matter of Smith v. McCarthy, 143 A.D.3d 726, 727–728, 38 N.Y.S.3d 588 ; Matter of Holmes v. Holmes, 140 A.D.3d 1066, 1068, 32 N.Y.S.3d 658 ). The mother, who had been unemployed for ......
-
Parmenter v. Nash, 898
...child (see Matter of Dupree v. Dupree, 62 N.Y.2d 1009, 1010–1012, 479 N.Y.S.2d 491, 468 N.E.2d 673 [1984] ; Matter of Smith v. McCarthy, 143 A.D.3d 726, 727–728, 38 N.Y.S.3d 588 [2d Dept. 2016] ; see also Spencer v. Spencer, 298 A.D.2d 680, 680–681, 748 N.Y.S.2d 809 [3d Dept. 2002] ). As on......
-
Gillison v. Penepent, 2016–06825
...change in circumstances" (Matter of Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 114 A.D.3d 798, 798, 980 N.Y.S.2d 531;see Matter of Smith v. McCarthy, 143 A.D.3d 726, 727, 38 N.Y.S.3d 588 ). However, the proper amount of support is determined "not by the parent's current economic situation, but by the parent......
-
Pathak v. Shukla, 2015–12659
...798, 798, 980 N.Y.S.2d 531 ; see Matter of Gillison v. Penepent, 156 A.D.3d 697, 698, 66 N.Y.S.3d 293 ; Matter of Smith v. McCarthy, 143 A.D.3d 726, 727, 38 N.Y.S.3d 588 ). However, the proper amount of support is determined " ‘not by the parent's current economic situation, but by the pare......