Kholasechi v. Israelian

44 A.D.3d 664, 841 N.Y.S.2d 887

This text of 44 A.D.3d 664 (Kholasechi v. Israelian) 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
Kholasechi v. Israelian, 44 A.D.3d 664, 841 N.Y.S.2d 887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Turbow, J.), dated July 5, 2006, as granted the mother’s objection to so much of an order of the same court (Bauer, S.M.), dated January 10, 2006, as, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation with respect to private school tuition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar appealed from, with costs.

The Family Court properly concluded that the Support Magistrate erred in determining that the father demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances to justify a downward modification of the prior support order (see Matter of Sannuto v Sannuto, 21 AD3d 901 [2005]). The party seeking a modification has the burden of establishing the existence of a change in circumstances warranting it (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Matter of Sannuto v Sannuto, 21 AD3d at 901; Matter of Prisco v Buxbaum, 275 AD2d 461 [2000]). Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court correctly determined that the father failed to meet his burden (see Matter of Sannuto [665]*665v Sannuto, 21 AD3d at 901; Klapper v Klapper, 204 AD2d 518 [1994]). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Florio and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Sannuto v. Sannuto
21 A.D.3d 901 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Klapper v. Klapper
204 A.D.2d 518 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Prisco v. Buxbaum
275 A.D.2d 461 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 A.D.3d 664, 841 N.Y.S.2d 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kholasechi-v-israelian-nyappdiv-2007.