Brunetti v. Brunetti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brunetti v. Brunetti

22 A.D.3d 577, 804 N.Y.S.2d 326

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

DecidedOctober 11, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 577 (Brunetti v. Brunetti) 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

Brunetti v. Brunetti, 22 A.D.3d 577, 804 N.Y.S.2d 326 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Kiedaisch, J.), entered September 14, 2004, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Braxton, S.M.) dated June 4, 2004, which, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“Absent a showing of an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances, the support provisions of [a child support] agreement should not be disturbed” (Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 213 [1977]; Gross v Gross, 15 AD3d 442 [2005]). “Moreover, where the application is one for a downward modification of child support, such a change in circumstances must be ‘substantial’ ” (Praeger v Praeger, 162 AD2d 671, 673 [1990]). The proper amount of support payable is determined not by a parent’s current economic situation, but, inter alia, by a parent’s earning powers (see Beard v Beard, 300 AD2d 268, 269 [2002]). In this case, the Support Magistrate properly determined that the father was capable of earning the level of income upon which the order of support was based. Accordingly, [578]*578the petition for a downward modification was properly denied. S. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Kiedaisch, J.), entered September 14, 2004, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Braxton, S.M.) dated June 4, 2004, which, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“Absent a showing of an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances, the support provisions of [a child support] agreement should not be disturbed” (Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 213 [1977]; Gross v Gross, 15 AD3d 442 [2005]). “Moreover, where the application is one for a downward modification of child support, such a change in circumstances must be ‘substantial’ ” (Praeger v Praeger, 162 AD2d 671, 673 [1990]). The proper amount of support payable is determined not by a parent’s current economic situation, but, inter alia, by a parent’s earning powers (see Beard v Beard, 300 AD2d 268, 269 [2002]). In this case, the Support Magistrate properly determined that the father was capable of earning the level of income upon which the order of support was based. Accordingly, [578]*578the petition for a downward modification was properly denied. S. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 577, 804 N.Y.S.2d 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brunetti-v-brunetti-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack