In re Sharon Roth

7 Citing cases

  1. Keith v Cindy Holmes

    31 A.D.3d 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 27 times

    Accordingly, the father failed to rebut the mother's prima facie showing by offering sufficient proof of his inability to pay ( see Matter of Bradley v Beneduce, supra; Matter of Gayle v Counts, 302 AD2d 521). In addition, the Family Court properly concluded that the Support Magistrate erred in determining that the father demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances to justify a downward modification of the prior support order ( see Matter of Sannuto v Sannuto, 21 AD3d 901). The party seeking a modification has the burden of establishing the existence of a change in circumstances warranting it ( see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Matter of Sannuto v Sannuto, supra; Matter of Prisco v Buxbaum, 275 AD2d 461; Matter of Roth v Bowman, 237 AD2d 447). Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court correctly determined that the father failed to meet his burden ( see Matter of Sannuto v Sannuto, supra). The father failed to establish that he lost his employment through no fault of his own ( see Matter of La Russo v Spencer, 13 AD3d 1098; Matter of Crystal v Corwin, 274 AD2d 683; Matter of Ludwig v Reyome, 195 AD2d 1020).

  2. Evelyn v. Defilippis

    31 A.D.3d 447 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 2 times

    Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the mother's objections to the Support Magistrate's determination that she failed to establish a substantial change in circumstances warranting an upward modification of child support ( see Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132; Matter of Roth v Bowman, 237 AD2d 447).

  3. In the Matter of Grant v. Green

    293 A.D.2d 540 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 5 times

    Contrary to the father's contention, his status as a recipient of public assistance is insufficient to relieve him of his obligation to provide court-ordered support (see Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v. McDonald, 245 A.D.2d 506; Matter of Ludwig v. Reyome, 195 A.D.2d 1020). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father's motion for a downward modification of his child support obligation, as he failed to meet his burden of establishing a substantial change in circumstances (see Matter of Prisco v. Buxbaum, 275 A.D.2d 461; Matter of Roth v. Bowman, 237 A.D.2d 447; Klapper v. Klapper, 204 A.D.2d 518). The father's remaining contentions are without merit.

  4. Sugarman v. Sugarman

    282 A.D.2d 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

    ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The Supreme Court correctly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for a downward modification of his child support obligation, as he failed to meet his burden of establishing a substantial change in circumstances (see, Matter of Prisco v. Buxbaum, 275 A.D.2d 461; Matter of Roth v. Bowman, 237 A.D.2d 447; Klapper v. Klapper, 204 A.D.2d 518, 519).

  5. Matter of Habib v. Habib

    269 A.D.2d 447 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 1 times

    The father was required to demonstrate a change of circumstances to obtain a downward modification of a prior child support order (see, Matter of Yeager v. Yeager, 266 A.D.2d 223 [2d Dept., Nov. 1, 1999]; Matter of Orange County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Meehan, 252 A.D.2d 588; Family Ct. Act § 461 Fam. Ct. Act[b][ii]; see generally, Matter of Brescia v. Fitts, 56 N.Y.2d 132). When a request for downward modification depends upon the credibility of the movant, the determination of the trier of fact is to be accorded great weight (see, Matter of Hargrove v. Frazier, 242 A.D.2d 723; Matter of Roth v. Bowman, 237 A.D.2d 447). We agree with the Family Court that the Hearing Examiner properly determined that the father failed to establish a change of circumstances warranting a downward modification of his child support obligation.

  6. Matter of Hargrove v. Frazier

    242 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 2 times

    An order of child support may be modified upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]). However, it is the burden of the moving party to establish the substantial change in circumstances warranting the modification ( see, Matter of Heverin v. Sackel, 239 A.D.2d 418; Matter of Roth v. Bowman, 237 A.D.2d 447; Matter of Catterson v. Catterson, 235 A.D.2d 420). In addition, such a determination of a substantial change in circumstances is a matter "addressed to the discretion of the court with each case turning on its particular facts" ( Matter of King v. King, 193 A.D.2d 800, 801; see also, Stempler v. Stempler, 200 A.D.2d 733, 734).

  7. Adinolfi v. Salvatore

    242 A.D.2d 311 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 9 times

    The Judicial Hearing Officer (hereinafter JHO) properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was for downward modification of his child support obligation inasmuch as it was predicated on a change of circumstances due to his voluntary change of employment ( see, Feld v. Feld, 214 A.D.2d 884; Epel v. Epel, 139 A.D.2d 488). Furthermore, the request for downward modification depended largely on the credibility of the defendant. The JHO's determination that the relevant parts of the defendant's testimony lacked credibility is entitled to great weight ( see, Matter of Roth v. Bowman, 237 A.D.2d 447; Matter of King v. King, 193 A.D.2d 800). O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.