French v. Gordon

103 A.D.3d 722, 960 N.Y.S.2d 143
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 13, 2013
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 103 A.D.3d 722 (French v. Gordon) 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
French v. Gordon, 103 A.D.3d 722, 960 N.Y.S.2d 143 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from a corrected order of the Family Court, Kings County (Turbow, J.), dated July 17, 2012, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Shamahs, S.M.), dated May 10, 2012, which dismissed without prejudice his petition for modification of an order of support.

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

A party seeking modification of a support order has the burden of establishing the existence of a substantial change in circumstances warranting the modification (see Matter of Suyunov v Tarashchansky, 98 AD3d 744 [2012]; Matter of Bouie v Joseph, 91 AD3d 641 [2012]; Matter of Nieves-Ford v Gordon, 47 AD3d 936 [2008]). Likewise, “ ‘[t]he burden of proof as to emancipation is on the party asserting it’ ” (Matter of Gold v Fisher, 59 AD3d 443, 444 [2009], quoting Schneider v Schneider, 116 AD2d 714, 715 [1986]). Here, the record supports the Support Magistrate’s determination that the father failed to satisfy [723]*723his prima facie burden of establishing that his son was economically independent, and thus, in effect, emancipated (see Matter of Burr v Fellner, 73 AD3d 1041 [2010]; see generally Matter of Alice C. v Bernard G.C., 193 AD2d 97 [1993]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order dismissing without prejudice his petition for modification of an order of support. Mastro, J.E, Skelos, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Monti v. DiBedendetto
2017 NY Slip Op 4847 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Sanders v. Sanders
2017 NY Slip Op 3549 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Brinskelle v. Widman
137 A.D.3d 1022 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Rolko v. Intini
128 A.D.3d 705 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Rubenstein v. Rubenstein
114 A.D.3d 798 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Nenninger v. Tonnessen
113 A.D.3d 619 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Ippolito v. Uriarte
112 A.D.3d 716 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Edwards v. Edwards
111 A.D.3d 630 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
103 A.D.3d 722, 960 N.Y.S.2d 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/french-v-gordon-nyappdiv-2013.