PEREZ, DARIO R. v. JOHNSON, KARIN C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

PEREZ, DARIO R. v. JOHNSON, KARIN C.

128 A.D.3d 1469, 7 N.Y.S.3d 919

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

DecidedMay 8, 2015

DocketCAF 14-00975

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 128 A.D.3d 1469 (PEREZ, DARIO R. v. JOHNSON, KARIN C.) 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

PEREZ, DARIO R. v. JOHNSON, KARIN C., 128 A.D.3d 1469, 7 N.Y.S.3d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Steuben County (Marianne Furfure, A.J.), entered October 15, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order denied petitioner’s objection to the order of the Support Magistrate.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, petitioner father appeals from an order denying his objection to the order of the Support Magistrate that denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation. We affirm. The Support Magistrate’s findings are entitled to great deference (see Matter of Fragola v Alfaro, 45 AD3d 684, 685 [2007]), and we conclude that the record supports the determination that the father “failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances that would justify a downward modification of his support obligation because he [did not present sufficient] ‘evidence establishing that he diligently sought re-employment commensurate with his former employment’ ” (Matter of Greene v Hanson, 100 AD3d 1558, 1558 [2012]; see Matter of Leonardo v Leonardo, 94 AD3d 1452, 1453 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 807 [2012]). We have considered the father’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Peradotto, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Steuben County (Marianne Furfure, A.J.), entered October 15, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order denied petitioner’s objection to the order of the Support Magistrate.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, petitioner father appeals from an order denying his objection to the order of the Support Magistrate that denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation. We affirm. The Support Magistrate’s findings are entitled to great deference (see Matter of Fragola v Alfaro, 45 AD3d 684, 685 [2007]), and we conclude that the record supports the determination that the father “failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances that would justify a downward modification of his support obligation because he [did not present sufficient] ‘evidence establishing that he diligently sought re-employment commensurate with his former employment’ ” (Matter of Greene v Hanson, 100 AD3d 1558, 1558 [2012]; see Matter of Leonardo v Leonardo, 94 AD3d 1452, 1453 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 807 [2012]). We have considered the father’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Peradotto, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 1469, 7 N.Y.S.3d 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-dario-r-v-johnson-karin-c-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack