Matter of Suchan v. Eagar

121 A.D.3d 910, 993 N.Y.S.2d 519
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 15, 2014
Docket2013-08131
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 121 A.D.3d 910 (Matter of Suchan v. Eagar) 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 Suchan v. Eagar, 121 A.D.3d 910, 993 N.Y.S.2d 519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Luft, J.), dated July 1, 2013, as granted the father’s objections to so much of an order of the same court (Lynaugh, S.M.), dated May 13, 2013, as, after a hearing, granted that branch of the mother’s petition which was for an upward modification of the father’s monthly child support obligation.

Ordered that the order dated July 1, 2013, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The parties’ stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into the parties’ judgment of divorce, set forth the father’s child support obligation, and was executed prior to the effective date of the 2010 amendments to Family Court Act § 451 (see L 2010, ch 182, § 13). Therefore, in order to establish her entitlement to an upward modification of the father’s child support obligation, the mother had the burden of establishing a substantial, unanticipated, and unreasonable change in circumstances resulting in a concomitant need (see Family Ct Act § 451 [2] [a]; Merl v Merl, 67 NY2d 359 [1986]; Matter of Corbisiero v Corbisiero, 112 AD3d 625 [2013]). Since the record demonstrates that the mother failed to meet her burden, the Family Court correctly granted the father’s objections to so much of the Support Magistrate’s order as granted that branch of the mother’s petition which was for an upward modification of his child support obligation.

Dillon, J.E, Hall, Austin and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of O'Connor-Gang v. Munoz
2016 NY Slip Op 6712 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Calandra v. Macaione
141 A.D.3d 519 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Nenninger v. Kelly
140 A.D.3d 961 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Straker v. Maynard-Straker
133 A.D.3d 865 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Kandus v. Forlenza
132 A.D.3d 815 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Lagani v. Li
131 A.D.3d 1246 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Kaplan v. Kaplan
130 A.D.3d 576 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Pepe v. Pepe
128 A.D.3d 831 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
DelGaudio v. DelGaudio
126 A.D.3d 848 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 A.D.3d 910, 993 N.Y.S.2d 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-suchan-v-eagar-nyappdiv-2014.