Opinion
05-18-2016
In the Matter of Martin J. GOEHRINGER, respondent, v. Theresa VOZZA–NICOLOSI, appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Theresa Vozza, etc., appellant, v. Martin J. Goehringer, respondent. (Proceeding No. 2).
Annette G. Hasapidis, South Salem, NY, for appellant. The Penichet Firm, P.C., White Plains, NY (Jeanna M. Alberga of counsel), for respondent.
Annette G. Hasapidis, South Salem, NY, for appellant. The Penichet Firm, P.C., White Plains, NY (Jeanna M. Alberga of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Arlene E. Katz, J.), dated April 6, 2015. The order denied the mother's objections to so much of an order of that court (Christine Patneaude Krahulik, S.M.) dated December 24, 2014, as, after a hearing, granted the father's petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.
ORDERED that the order dated April 6, 2015, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
To establish entitlement to a downward modification of a child support order, a party has the burden of showing that there has been “a substantial change in circumstances” (Family Ct. Act § 451[3][a] ; see Matter of Lagani v. Li, 131 A.D.3d 1246, 1247, 16 N.Y.S.3d 863 ). Here, the Family Court properly denied the mother's objections to the Support Magistrate's determination granting the father's petition for a downward modification, as the father demonstrated both that his loss of employment constituted a substantial change in circumstances and that he made a good-faith effort to obtain new employment which was commensurate with his qualifications and experience (see Matter of Dimaio v. Dimaio, 111 A.D.3d 933, 934, 976 N.Y.S.2d 133 ; Matter of Ceballos v. Castillo, 85 A.D.3d 1161, 1163, 926 N.Y.S.2d 142 ; Matter of Getty v. Getty, 83 A.D.3d 835, 835, 920 N.Y.S.2d 673 ).
The mother's contentions that the Support Magistrate erred in dismissing her enforcement petition and in crediting the father for overpayments made during the pendency of the proceeding are unpreserved for appellate review, as the mother failed to raise those issues in the objections before the Family Court (see Matter of Best v. Hinds, 113 A.D.3d 676, 978 N.Y.S.2d 688 ; Matter of Elia v. Elia, 299 A.D.2d 358, 749 N.Y.S.2d 176 ; Matter of Stone v. Stone, 236 A.D.2d 615, 615–616, 654 N.Y.S.2d 677 ), and, in any event, are without merit.
We note that while child support overpayments may not be recovered by reducing future support payments (see Matter of Maksimyadis v. Maksimyadis, 275 A.D.2d 459, 461, 713 N.Y.S.2d 79 ), “public policy does not forbid offsetting add-on expenses against an overpayment” (Coull v. Rottman, 35 A.D.3d 198, 201, 828 N.Y.S.2d 295 ).
HALL, J.P., ROMAN, COHEN and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.