Clate v. Clate

199 A.D.2d 1064, 605 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12694
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 29, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 1064 (Clate v. Clate) 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
Clate v. Clate, 199 A.D.2d 1064, 605 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12694 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Where a parent, in a petition seeking a modification of child support, asserts the child’s right to receive adequate support, ’’the test is whether petitioner has shown a change of circumstances warranting an increase in the best interests of the child” (Matter of Sutton v Sutton, 178 AD2d 980; see also, Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132, 141; Matter of Michaels v Michaels, 56 NY2d 924). Family Court properly applied the Brescia test to petitioner’s modification petition, rather than the more stringent test set forth in Matter of Boden v Boden (42 NY2d 210). Petitioner adequately demonstrated that the amount of child support agreed to by the parties when their son was nine months old is no longer adequate to support him now that he is 17 years old and attending high school. Petitioner further proved that her parents, with whom she and her son lived, had contributed to their support and that, when her parents died, petitioner’s gross salary of approximately $18,500 annually was insufficient to cover her expenses for herself and her son. Petitioner was forced to take a home equity loan, sell her jewelry, and borrow money from a family friend to make ends meet. Respondent, on the other hand, earns in excess of $82,000 per year.

[1065]*1065Once it had determined that there had been a change of circumstances warranting modification, Family Court properly applied the Child Support Standards Act to determine the amount of support for which respondent would be responsible (see, Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [l]; Matter of Sutton v Sutton, supra, at 981). (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Bersani, J.—Child Support.) Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

Related

Neil v. Neil
232 A.D.2d 771 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Hughes v. Wasik
224 A.D.2d 982 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
199 A.D.2d 1064, 605 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clate-v-clate-nyappdiv-1993.