Uher v. Uher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Uher v. Uher

88 A.D.3d 732, 930 N.Y.2d 468

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

DecidedOctober 4, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 88 A.D.3d 732 (Uher v. Uher) 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

Uher v. Uher, 88 A.D.3d 732, 930 N.Y.2d 468 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

A party seeking downward modification of a child support obligation has the burden of establishing a change in circumstances (see Matter of Dinhofer v Zabezhanskaya, 79 AD3d 1039, 1040 [2010]; Matter of Piernick v Nazinitsky, 48 AD3d 690 [2008]). “A parent’s loss of employment may constitute a change of circumstances warranting a downward modification of child support if it is demonstrated that the noncustodial parent has diligently sought reemployment” (Matter of McAndrew v McAndrew, 84 AD3d 1381, 1382 [2011]; see Ritchey v Ritchey, 82 AD3d 948, 949 [2011]). Here, however, the father failed to establish that he made a good faith effort to obtain new employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience (see Matter of Awwad v Awwad, 62 AD3d 695 [2009]; Matter of D'Altilio v D'Altilio, 14 AD3d 701 [2005]).

Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order denying the father’s petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

The father’s remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court (see Matter of Betancourt v Betancourt, 71 AD3d 764 [2010]). Prudenti, PJ., Rivera, Austin and Roman, JJ, concur.

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

A party seeking downward modification of a child support obligation has the burden of establishing a change in circumstances (see Matter of Dinhofer v Zabezhanskaya, 79 AD3d 1039, 1040 [2010]; Matter of Piernick v Nazinitsky, 48 AD3d 690 [2008]). “A parent’s loss of employment may constitute a change of circumstances warranting a downward modification of child support if it is demonstrated that the noncustodial parent has diligently sought reemployment” (Matter of McAndrew v McAndrew, 84 AD3d 1381, 1382 [2011]; see Ritchey v Ritchey, 82 AD3d 948, 949 [2011]). Here, however, the father failed to establish that he made a good faith effort to obtain new employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience (see Matter of Awwad v Awwad, 62 AD3d 695 [2009]; Matter of D'Altilio v D'Altilio, 14 AD3d 701 [2005]).

Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order denying the father’s petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

The father’s remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court (see Matter of Betancourt v Betancourt, 71 AD3d 764 [2010]). Prudenti, PJ., Rivera, Austin and Roman, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.3d 732, 930 N.Y.2d 468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uher-v-uher-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack