Matter of Zaveckas v. Senat

2016 NY Slip Op 8535, 145 A.D.3d 908, 42 N.Y.S.3d 838
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 21, 2016
Docket2016-00681
StatusPublished

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8535 (Matter of Zaveckas v. Senat) 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 Zaveckas v. Senat, 2016 NY Slip Op 8535, 145 A.D.3d 908, 42 N.Y.S.3d 838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Appeal by the father from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Connie Gonzalez, J.), dated December 2, 2015. The order denied the father’s objections to an order of that court (Joette M. Blaustein, S.M.), dated October 19, 2015, which, after a hearing, in effect, denied the father’s petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

*909 Ordered that the order dated December 2, 2015, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A party seeking a modification of a child support order bears the burden of establishing a change in circumstances warranting the modification (see Matter of Ealy v Levy-Hill, 140 AD3d 1164, 1165 [2016]; Matter of Nenninger v Tonnessen, 113 AD3d 619 [2014]). Here, the record supports the Support Magistrate’s determination that the father failed to establish a sufficient change in circumstances. Specifically, the father failed to submit competent medical evidence of his alleged disability (see Matter of Straker v Maynard-Straker, 133 AD3d 865, 866 [2015]; Matter of Mikhlin v Giuffrida, 119 AD3d 692, 693 [2014]; Matter of Gavin v Worner, 112 AD3d 928, 929 [2013]; Matter of Rodriguez v Mendoza-Gonzalez, 96 AD3d 766, 767 [2012]), and he did not show that he had diligently sought reemployment commensurate with his qualifications and experience (see Matter of Marrale v Marrale, 44 AD3d 773, 776 [2007]; Matter of Davis v Davis, 13 AD3d 623, 624 [2004]; Matter of McCarthy v McCarthy, 2 AD3d 735 [2003]). Accordingly, the Support Magistrate properly, in effect, denied the father’s petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation, and the Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to the order denying his petition.

Rivera, J.R, Chambers, Roman and LaSalle, 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)
Matter of Straker v. Maynard-Straker
133 A.D.3d 865 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Ealy v. Levy-Hill
140 A.D.3d 1164 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
McCarthy v. McCarthy
2 A.D.3d 735 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Davis v. Davis
13 A.D.3d 623 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Marrale v. Marrale
44 A.D.3d 773 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Rodriguez v. Mendoza-Gonzalez
96 A.D.3d 766 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Gavin v. Worner
112 A.D.3d 928 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Nenninger v. Tonnessen
113 A.D.3d 619 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2016 NY Slip Op 8535, 145 A.D.3d 908, 42 N.Y.S.3d 838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-zaveckas-v-senat-nyappdiv-2016.