Opinion
2012-05-1
In the Matter of Donna M. RIENDEAU, respondent, v. Michael P. RIENDEAU, appellant.
Tor Jacob Worsoe, Jr., Holtsville, N.Y., for appellant. Simonetti & Associates, Woodbury, N.Y. (Louis F. Simonetti of counsel), for respondent.
Tor Jacob Worsoe, Jr., Holtsville, N.Y., for appellant. Simonetti & Associates, Woodbury, N.Y. (Louis F. Simonetti of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffmann, J.), dated April 18, 2011, as denied his objection to so much of an order of the same court (Fields, S.M.), dated September 17, 2010, as, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.
ORDERED that the order dated April 18, 2011, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
“ ‘A parent seeking downward modification of a child support obligation has the burden of establishing a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances' ” ( Basile v. Wiggs, 82 A.D.3d 921, 921, 920 N.Y.S.2d 103, quoting Matter of Mera v. Rodriguez, 74 A.D.3d 974, 974, 904 N.Y.S.2d 83; see Matter of Kalarickal v. Kalarickal, 89 A.D.3d 846, 847, 932 N.Y.S.2d 366; Matter of Muselevichus v. Muselevichus, 40 A.D.3d 997, 998, 836 N.Y.S.2d 661). A parent's loss of employment may constitute a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances justifying a downward modification of child support where the termination occurred through no fault of the parent and the parent has diligently sought re-employment commensurate with his or her earning capacity ( see Matter of Bruckstein v. Bruckstein, 78 A.D.3d 695, 696, 910 N.Y.S.2d 176; Matter of Gedacht v. Agulnek, 67 A.D.3d 1013, 890 N.Y.S.2d 76; Matter of Muselevichus v. Muselevichus, 40 A.D.3d at 998, 836 N.Y.S.2d 661). Here, the Family Court properly determined that the father failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances warranting a downward modification of his child support obligation ( see Matter of Kalarickal v. Kalarickal, 89 A.D.3d at 847, 932 N.Y.S.2d 366). The father caused his own loss of employment by failing to meet his child support obligation, which resulted in his incarceration for a period of six months. In addition, the father's unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations that he diligently sought employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience were insufficient to meet his burden ( see Matter of Peterson v. Peterson, 75 A.D.3d 512, 513, 904 N.Y.S.2d 500; Matter of Gedacht v. Agulnek, 67 A.D.3d 1013, 890 N.Y.S.2d 76).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.