Opinion
June 10, 1996
Appeal from the Family Court, Suffolk County (Trainor, J., Rodriguez, H.E.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is denied, and the original child support provisions of the judgment of divorce are reinstated.
When one parent seeks to increase the support obligations of the children based upon their increased needs, it is not necessary to show an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances because the increase is predicated on the children's right to receive adequate support (see, Montagnino v Montagnino, 163 A.D.2d 598; Matter of Michaels v. Michaels, 56 N.Y.2d 924, 926; Matter of Brescia v. Fitts, 56 N.Y.2d 132; Haimowitz v. Gerber, 153 A.D.2d 879). However, the increased support is only warranted where the movant sets forth specific increased expenses on behalf of the child as opposed to merely a general claim that the children's needs have increased as the children matured or as a result of inflation (see, Matter of Brescia v. Fitts, supra; Matter of Boden v. Boden, 42 N.Y.2d 210; Matter of Halliday v. Taddeo, 223 A.D.2d 542; Matter of Staffanel v. Staffanel, 220 A.D.2d 751; Matter of Pettey v. Piko, 215 A.D.2d 485; Rocchio v. Rocchio, 213 A.D.2d 535; Matter of Adams-Eppes v Fulton, 195 A.D.2d 455, 456; Zucker v. Zucker, 187 A.D.2d 507, 509). Increased expenses arising as a result of the mother's remarriage do not give rise to such a need (see, e.g., Matter of Drew v. Drew, 210 A.D.2d 222).
Here, no proof was offered as to the increased needs of the parties' children. That the mother's new family unit was suffering financial difficulties did not satisfy her burden of proving specific increased needs of the parties' children which would warrant an increase in child support (see, Matter of Staffanel v. Staffanel, supra; Matter of Adams-Eppes v. Fulton, supra; Zucker v. Zucker, supra; Matter of Miller v. Davis, 176 A.D.2d 945). Miller, J.P., Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.