Opinion
2014-01-8
In the Matter of Donald J. NENNINGER, Jr., appellant, v. Holly L. TONNESSEN, respondent.
Donald J. Nenninger, Jr., Port Jefferson, N.Y., appellant pro se.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffmann, J.), dated April 3, 2012, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Buse, S.M.) dated December 23, 2011, which, after a fact-finding hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation and dismissed the petition.
ORDERED that the order dated April 3, 2012, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A party seeking modification of a support order has the burden of establishing the existence of a substantial change in circumstances warranting the modification ( see Matter of French v. Gordon, 103 A.D.3d 722, 960 N.Y.S.2d 143; Matter of Suyunov v. Tarashchansky, 98 A.D.3d 744, 745, 950 N.Y.S.2d 399). Loss of employment may constitute a substantial change in circumstances ( see Matter of Suyunov v. Tarashchansky, 98 A.D.3d at 745, 950 N.Y.S.2d 399; Matter of Ceballos v. Castillo, 85 A.D.3d 1161, 1162, 926 N.Y.S.2d 142). A party seeking a downward modification of his or her child support obligation based upon a loss of employment has the burden of demonstrating that he or she made diligent attempts to secure employment commensurate with his or her education, ability, and experience ( see Matter of Suyunov v. Tarashchansky, 98 A.D.3d at 745, 950 N.Y.S.2d 399; Matter of Ceballos v. Castillo, 85 A.D.3d 1161, 926 N.Y.S.2d 142; Family Ct. Act § 451[2][b] [ii] ).
Here, the Family Court properly denied the father's objections to the Support Magistrate's order denying his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation. The record supports the Family Court's determination that the father failed to submit competent proof of his diligent efforts to obtain employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience ( see Matter of Suyunov v. Tarashchansky, 98 A.D.3d at 745, 950 N.Y.S.2d 399; Matter of Ceballos v. Castillo, 85 A.D.3d 1161, 926 N.Y.S.2d 142; Family Ct. Act § 451[2][b][ii] ). SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, COHEN and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.