Capasso v. Michalowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Capasso v. Michalowski

284 A.D.2d 395, 726 N.Y.S.2d 274, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6052

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

DecidedJune 11, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 395 (Capasso v. Michalowski) 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

Capasso v. Michalowski, 284 A.D.2d 395, 726 N.Y.S.2d 274, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6052 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Trainor, J.), dated December 14, 1999, as granted the respondent’s objections to an order of the same court (Fields-Ferrarro, H.E.), dated September 27, 1999, denying his application for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order dated December 14,1999, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The respondent met his burden of demonstrating an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances warranting a downward modification of his child support obligation. The uncontradicted and unequivocal testimony at the hearing from two independent witnesses established that the respondent’s ability to earn the level of income upon which his support [396]*396obligation was based was significantly diminished through no fault of his own (see, Heverin v Sackel, 239 AD2d 418). Santucci, J. P., Goldstein, Luciano and Adams, 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, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Trainor, J.), dated December 14, 1999, as granted the respondent’s objections to an order of the same court (Fields-Ferrarro, H.E.), dated September 27, 1999, denying his application for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order dated December 14,1999, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The respondent met his burden of demonstrating an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances warranting a downward modification of his child support obligation. The uncontradicted and unequivocal testimony at the hearing from two independent witnesses established that the respondent’s ability to earn the level of income upon which his support [396]*396obligation was based was significantly diminished through no fault of his own (see, Heverin v Sackel, 239 AD2d 418). Santucci, J. P., Goldstein, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 395, 726 N.Y.S.2d 274, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capasso-v-michalowski-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack