Broomhall v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Broomhall v. Jones

47 A.D.3d 711, 848 N.Y.S.2d 896

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 15, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 47 A.D.3d 711 (Broomhall v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Broomhall v. Jones, 47 A.D.3d 711, 848 N.Y.S.2d 896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child sup port proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), entered February 23, 2007, which denied her objections to an order of the same court (Braxton, S.M.), dated November 13, 2006, which, after a hearing, denied her [712]*712application for a downward modification of her child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly denied the mother’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order on the ground that she failed to satisfy her burden of establishing an unanticipated change in circumstances to warrant a downward modification of her child support obligation. Any change in circumstances was of the mother’s own making (see Matter of Connolly v Connolly, 39 AD3d 643 [2007]; Schlakman v Schlakman, 38 AD3d 640 [2007]; Matter of Bouchard v Bouchard, 263 AD2d 775 [1999]). Mastro, J.E, Dillon, Covello and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a child sup port proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), entered February 23, 2007, which denied her objections to an order of the same court (Braxton, S.M.), dated November 13, 2006, which, after a hearing, denied her [712]*712application for a downward modification of her child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly denied the mother’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order on the ground that she failed to satisfy her burden of establishing an unanticipated change in circumstances to warrant a downward modification of her child support obligation. Any change in circumstances was of the mother’s own making (see Matter of Connolly v Connolly, 39 AD3d 643 [2007]; Schlakman v Schlakman, 38 AD3d 640 [2007]; Matter of Bouchard v Bouchard, 263 AD2d 775 [1999]). Mastro, J.E, Dillon, Covello and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.3d 711, 848 N.Y.S.2d 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broomhall-v-jones-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack