Robert V.C. v. Polly V.H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robert V.C. v. Polly V.H.

94 A.D.3d 583, 942 N.Y.S.2d 349

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

DecidedApril 19, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 94 A.D.3d 583 (Robert V.C. v. Polly V.H.) 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

Robert V.C. v. Polly V.H., 94 A.D.3d 583, 942 N.Y.S.2d 349 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Clark V Richardson, J.), entered on or about September 10, 2008, which, upon the parties’ respective objections to the Support Magistrate’s order, entered June 3, 2008, dismissing petitioner’s petition for a downward modification in child support, vacated the June 3, 2008 order and reinstated a June 30, 2006 support order of $1,817 per month, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to show a substantial change in circumstances warranting a downward modification of the support award (see Matter of Sullivan v Sullivan, 22 AD3d 415 [2005]). He provided no documentation to substantiate his claimed income or his claimed receipt of public assistance. He failed to produce an up-to-date diary detailing his job search for work commensurate with his training and experience (see O’Brien v McCann, 249 AD2d 92 [1998]).

Petitioner was properly advised of his right to counsel. We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, PJ., Saxe, Sweeny, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Clark V Richardson, J.), entered on or about September 10, 2008, which, upon the parties’ respective objections to the Support Magistrate’s order, entered June 3, 2008, dismissing petitioner’s petition for a downward modification in child support, vacated the June 3, 2008 order and reinstated a June 30, 2006 support order of $1,817 per month, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to show a substantial change in circumstances warranting a downward modification of the support award (see Matter of Sullivan v Sullivan, 22 AD3d 415 [2005]). He provided no documentation to substantiate his claimed income or his claimed receipt of public assistance. He failed to produce an up-to-date diary detailing his job search for work commensurate with his training and experience (see O’Brien v McCann, 249 AD2d 92 [1998]).

Petitioner was properly advised of his right to counsel. We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, PJ., Saxe, Sweeny, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.3d 583, 942 N.Y.S.2d 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-vc-v-polly-vh-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack