From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gribbin v. Gribbin

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 25, 2015
126 A.D.3d 938 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

2015-03-25

Jennifer J. GRIBBIN, respondent, v. James F. GRIBBIN, appellant.

Jason M. Barbara & Associates, P.C., Lake Success, N.Y. (Penny J.G. Berger of counsel), for appellant.


Jason M. Barbara & Associates, P.C., Lake Success, N.Y. (Penny J.G. Berger of counsel), for appellant.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goodstein, J.), dated November 20, 2012, which denied his motion to modify the child support provision of the parties' stipulation of settlement.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion to modify the child support provision of the parties' stipulation of settlement. The parties' stipulation of settlement, wherein the parties agreed that the defendant would not receive any award of child support, was executed prior to the effective date of the 2010 amendments to Family Court Act § 451 ( see L. 2010, ch. 182, § 13). Therefore, the defendant had the burden of showing a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances since the time he agreed that he would not receive any child support as provided for in the stipulation ( see Matter of Gadalinska v. Ahmed, 120 A.D.3d 1232, 1232, 992 N.Y.S.2d 115; Matter of Dimaio v. Dimaio, 111 A.D.3d 933, 933–934, 976 N.Y.S.2d 133).

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant failed to meet this burden. The defendant, who earns approximately $250,000 per year, failed to show a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances since the time he agreed that he would not receive any child support ( see Samuelson v. Samuelson, 108 A.D.3d 612, 613, 969 N.Y.S.2d 143). Furthermore, the defendant does not argue on appeal that the needs of the children are not being met ( see Nelson v. Nelson, 75 A.D.3d 593, 594, 904 N.Y.S.2d 663).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion to modify the child support provision of the parties' stipulation of settlement.

ENG, P.J., LEVENTHAL, HALL and MALTESE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gribbin v. Gribbin

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 25, 2015
126 A.D.3d 938 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Gribbin v. Gribbin

Case Details

Full title:Jennifer J. GRIBBIN, respondent, v. James F. GRIBBIN, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 25, 2015

Citations

126 A.D.3d 938 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
126 A.D.3d 938
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 2451

Citing Cases

Baez v. Ortiz

The parties' separation agreement was executed prior to the effective date of the 2010 amendments to Family…

J.A.H. v. E.G.M.

Moreover, the plaintiff's return to full-time employment was not unanticipated given that the separation…