Gribbin v. Gribbin

126 A.D.3d 938, 3 N.Y.S.3d 628
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 25, 2015
Docket2013-01631
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 126 A.D.3d 938 (Gribbin v. Gribbin) 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
Gribbin v. Gribbin, 126 A.D.3d 938, 3 N.Y.S.3d 628 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goodstein, J.), dated November 20, 2012, which denied his motion to modify the child support provision of the parties’ stipulation of settlement.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to modify the child support provision of the parties’ stipulation of settlement. The parties’ stipulation of settlement, wherein the parties agreed that the defendant would not receive any award of child support, was executed prior to the effective date of the 2010 amendments to Family Court Act § 451 (see L 2010, ch 182, § 13). Therefore, the defendant had the burden of showing a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances since the time he agreed that he would not receive any child support as provided for in the stipulation (see Matter of Gadalinska v Ahmed, 120 AD3d 1232, 1232 [2014]; Matter of Dimaio v Dimaio, 111 AD3d 933, 933-934 [2013]).

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant failed to meet this burden. The defendant, who earns approximately $250,000 per year, failed to show a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances since the time he agreed that he would not receive any child support (see Samuelson v Samuelson, 108 AD3d 612, 613 [2013]). Furthermore, the defendant does not argue on appeal that the needs of the children are not being met (see Nelson v Nelson, 75 AD3d 593, 594 [2010]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to modify the child support provision of the parties’ stipulation of settlement.

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Hall and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

Related

McMann v. McMann
2019 NY Slip Op 429 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Brady v. White
2018 NY Slip Op 1181 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Baez v. Ortiz
2017 NY Slip Op 5722 (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 Milton v. Tormey-Milton
133 A.D.3d 857 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Casler v. Casler
131 A.D.3d 664 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 A.D.3d 938, 3 N.Y.S.3d 628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gribbin-v-gribbin-nyappdiv-2015.