Carnegie v. Suffolk County Department of Social Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carnegie v. Suffolk County Department of Social Services

27 A.D.3d 648, 810 N.Y.S.2d 679

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 21, 2006·Published

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Simeone, J.), dated March 30, 2005, which denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Buse, S.M.), dated December 22, 2004, as, after a hearing, dismissed his petition to terminate his child support obligation.

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

A parent seeking downward modification of his or her child [649] support obligation has the burden of establishing a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances (see Matter of Ferrante v Ferrante, 260 AD2d 576 [1999]; Matter of Heverin v Sackel, 239 AD2d 418 [1997]). In the instant case, the father failed to adduce any evidence to demonstrate any change in circumstances regarding his ability to make his support payments. Thus, the Family Court properly dismissed his petition to terminate his child support obligation and denied his objections to the order of the Support Magistrate.

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Spolzino, Fisher and Dillon, 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 father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Simeone, J.), dated March 30, 2005, which denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Buse, S.M.), dated December 22, 2004, as, after a hearing, dismissed his petition to terminate his child support obligation.

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

A parent seeking downward modification of his or her child [649] support obligation has the burden of establishing a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances (see Matter of Ferrante v Ferrante, 260 AD2d 576 [1999]; Matter of Heverin v Sackel, 239 AD2d 418 [1997]). In the instant case, the father failed to adduce any evidence to demonstrate any change in circumstances regarding his ability to make his support payments. Thus, the Family Court properly dismissed his petition to terminate his child support obligation and denied his objections to the order of the Support Magistrate.

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Spolzino, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Carnegie v. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, 27 A.D.3d 648, 810 N.Y.S.2d 679 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

27 A.D.3d 648 (Carnegie v. Suffolk County Department of Social Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related