Matter of Ealy v. Levy-Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Ealy v. Levy-Hill

140 A.D.3d 1164, 33 N.Y.S.3d 754

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

DecidedJune 29, 2016

Docket2015-02776

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 1164 (Matter of Ealy v. Levy-Hill) 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

Matter of Ealy v. Levy-Hill, 140 A.D.3d 1164, 33 N.Y.S.3d 754 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Debra J. Kiedaisch, J.), dated February 24, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the mother’s objections to an order of that court (Gladys E. Braxton, S.M.) dated December 24, 2014, which, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order dated February 24, 2015, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the mother’s objections are granted, the order dated December 24, 2014, is vacated, and the father’s petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation is denied.

The Family Court should have granted the mother’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order granting the father’s petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation. A “party seeking modification of an order of child *1165 support has the burden of establishing the existence of a substantial change in circumstances warranting the modification” (Matter of Baumgardner v Baumgardner, 126 AD3d 895, 896-897 [2015]; see Matter of Rubenstein v Rubenstein, 114 AD3d 798, 798 [2014]; Matter of Suyunov v Tarashchansky, 98 AD3d 744, 745 [2012]). Here, although the loss of employment can constitute such a change in circumstances, the father failed to establish that the termination of his employment did not involve his own fault, and he did not present competent proof at the hearing that, after he lost his job, he made a diligent effort to obtain new employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience (see Matter of Rubenstein v Rubenstein, 114 AD3d at 798-799; Ashmore v Ashmore, 114 AD3d 712,- 713 [2014]; Matter of Nenninger v Tonnessen, 113 AD3d 619 [2014]; Matter of GedacHt v Agulnek, 67 AD3d 1013 [2009]; Matter of Awwad v Awwad, 62 AD3d 695 [2009]). We note that the father failed to submit evidence such as résumés sent to potential employers, or proof that he had been on any interviews in search of employment (see Matter of Fantau v Fantau, 134 AD3d 1109, 1110 [2015]).

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Debra J. Kiedaisch, J.), dated February 24, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the mother’s objections to an order of that court (Gladys E. Braxton, S.M.) dated December 24, 2014, which, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order dated February 24, 2015, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the mother’s objections are granted, the order dated December 24, 2014, is vacated, and the father’s petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation is denied.

The Family Court should have granted the mother’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order granting the father’s petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation. A “party seeking modification of an order of child *1165 support has the burden of establishing the existence of a substantial change in circumstances warranting the modification” (Matter of Baumgardner v Baumgardner, 126 AD3d 895, 896-897 [2015]; see Matter of Rubenstein v Rubenstein, 114 AD3d 798, 798 [2014]; Matter of Suyunov v Tarashchansky, 98 AD3d 744, 745 [2012]). Here, although the loss of employment can constitute such a change in circumstances, the father failed to establish that the termination of his employment did not involve his own fault, and he did not present competent proof at the hearing that, after he lost his job, he made a diligent effort to obtain new employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience (see Matter of Rubenstein v Rubenstein, 114 AD3d at 798-799; Ashmore v Ashmore, 114 AD3d 712,- 713 [2014]; Matter of Nenninger v Tonnessen, 113 AD3d 619 [2014]; Matter of GedacHt v Agulnek, 67 AD3d 1013 [2009]; Matter of Awwad v Awwad, 62 AD3d 695 [2009]). We note that the father failed to submit evidence such as résumés sent to potential employers, or proof that he had been on any interviews in search of employment (see Matter of Fantau v Fantau, 134 AD3d 1109, 1110 [2015]).

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 1164, 33 N.Y.S.3d 754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-ealy-v-levy-hill-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack