Yourman v. Yourman

216 A.D.2d 308, 627 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5931
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 5, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 308 (Yourman v. Yourman) 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
Yourman v. Yourman, 216 A.D.2d 308, 627 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5931 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated September 28, 1993, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Spegele, H.E.), dated July 13, 1993, which, after a hearing, denied his application for a downward modification of child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The evidence in the record supports the Hearing Examiner’s determination that the decrease in the father’s income, as reflected in his income tax returns, resulted from his voluntarily changing his business and underreporting his income. Accordingly, the father’s application for a downward modification of his child support obligation was properly denied (see, Hickland v Hickland, 39 NY2d 1, cert denied 429 US 941; Kay v Kay, 37 NY2d 632; Alfano v Alfano, 151 AD2d 530).

The father contends that his income has decreased because his progressively disabling knee problems forced him to abandon his business as a carpenter and a handyman. However, there was no medical testimony to that effect offered at the hearing. Indeed, the father admitted that, after working in a restaurant for about a week, he quit because it interfered with his primary business of selling antiques and collectibles. While a parent is entitled to attempt to improve his or her vocational lot, the children should not be expected to subsidize the [309]*309parent’s decision (see, Matter of Westwater v Donnelly, 204 AD2d 467; Alfano v Alfano, supra, at 530). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Hackett v. Hackett
2017 NY Slip Op 7120 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Bustamante v. Donawa
119 A.D.3d 559 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Smith v. Todd-Smith
68 A.D.3d 1001 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Hores v. Hores
24 A.D.3d 665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Austein-Gillman v. Gillman
292 A.D.2d 524 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Zeiser v. Zeiser
288 A.D.2d 317 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Evangeline M. v. Ebenezer E.
176 Misc. 2d 441 (NYC Family Court, 1998)
Doyle v. Doyle
230 A.D.2d 795 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
216 A.D.2d 308, 627 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yourman-v-yourman-nyappdiv-1995.