Marcus v. Marcus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marcus v. Marcus

45 A.D.3d 689, 844 N.Y.S.2d 886

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 13, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 689 (Marcus v. Marcus) 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

Marcus v. Marcus, 45 A.D.3d 689, 844 N.Y.S.2d 886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[690]*690In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Simeone, J.), dated February 16, 2007, which denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Orlando, S.M.), dated September 27, 2006, as, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation, the father failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a substantial change in circumstance warranting such a modification (see Matter of Talty v Talty, 42 AD3d 546 [2007]). While the father presented evidence of a modest salary decrease, he was nonetheless possessed of sufficient means to provide support at the level ordered (id,.). Accordingly, the father’s petition was properly denied. Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

[690]*690In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Simeone, J.), dated February 16, 2007, which denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Orlando, S.M.), dated September 27, 2006, as, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation, the father failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a substantial change in circumstance warranting such a modification (see Matter of Talty v Talty, 42 AD3d 546 [2007]). While the father presented evidence of a modest salary decrease, he was nonetheless possessed of sufficient means to provide support at the level ordered (id,.). Accordingly, the father’s petition was properly denied. Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 689, 844 N.Y.S.2d 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marcus-v-marcus-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack