Khoussa v. Peeple

115 A.D.3d 954, 982 N.Y.S.2d 527
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 26, 2014
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 115 A.D.3d 954 (Khoussa v. Peeple) 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
Khoussa v. Peeple, 115 A.D.3d 954, 982 N.Y.S.2d 527 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Wolff, J.), dated March 22, 2013, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Hickey, S.M.) dated November 16, 2012, which, after a fact-finding hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation and dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order dated March 22, 2013, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order. 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 Gansky v Gansky, 103 AD3d 894 [2013]; Greisman v Greisman, 98 AD3d 1079 [2012]). Here, the financial documentation and other evidence submitted by the father to the Support Magistrate provided an incomplete account of his financial situation at the time of the order sought to be modified, and of his financial situation at the time he filed the petition (see Matter of Mofadal v Abdelhadi, 88 AD3d 886 [2011]). [955]*955Therefore, the Family Court properly determined that the father failed to establish a requisite substantial change of circumstances that would warrant a downward modification of his child support obligation (see Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [a]).

Mastro, J.E, Dillon, Leventhal and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Mikhlin v. Giuffrida
119 A.D.3d 692 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
115 A.D.3d 954, 982 N.Y.S.2d 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/khoussa-v-peeple-nyappdiv-2014.