Opinion
2013-11-27
In the Matter of Fritzner BECHETTE, appellant, v. Chislaine FERAUD, respondent.
Fritzner Bechette, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellant pro se. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers and Deborah A. Brenner of counsel), for respondent.
Fritzner Bechette, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellant pro se. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers and Deborah A. Brenner of counsel), for respondent.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Katz, J.), dated January 31, 2012, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Fasone, S.M.) dated November 3, 2011, which, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.
ORDERED that the order dated January 31, 2012, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Support Magistrate properly denied the father's petition for a downward modificationof his child support obligation because he failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances warranting the modification ( see Matter of Grucci v. Villanti, 108 A.D.3d 626, 969 N.Y.S.2d 493; Matter of Rabasco v. Lamar, 106 A.D.3d 1095, 966 N.Y.S.2d 190, lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1051, 973 N.Y.S.2d 84, 995 N.E.2d 1156; Matter of Gansky v. Gansky, 103 A.D.3d 894, 895, 962 N.Y.S.2d 255). “ ‘A parent's child support obligation is not necessarily determined by his or her current financial condition, but rather by his or her ability to provide support’ ” ( Matter of Solis v. Marmolejos, 50 A.D.3d 691, 692, 855 N.Y.S.2d 584, quoting Matter of Davis v. Davis, 13 A.D.3d 623, 624, 787 N.Y.S.2d 113). The father failed to demonstrate that he was unable to provide support at the same level as directed in a prior order of the Family Court. The medical documents presented by the father at the hearing were inadmissible ( see Matter of Bronstein–Becher v. Becher, 25 A.D.3d 796, 797, 809 N.Y.S.2d 140), and, in any case, were insufficient to establish that his purported medical conditions prevented him from obtaining employment that was commensurate with his education and skills ( see Matter of Musumeci v. Musumeci, 295 A.D.2d 516, 744 N.Y.S.2d 440).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father's objections to the Support Magistrate's order. RIVERA, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, HALL and COHEN, JJ., concur.