Opinion
2011-10-4
In the Matter of Craig UHER, appellant,v.Anne UHER, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1)In the Matter of Anne Uher, respondent,v.Craig Uher, appellant. (Proceeding No. 2).
Craig Uher, Coram, N.Y., appellant pro se.
In related child support proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffmann, J.), dated August 19, 2010, which, in effect, denied his objections to (1) an order of the same court (Parisi, S.M.), dated June 25, 2010, which, after a hearing, in effect, denied his petition in Proceeding No. 1 for a downward modification of his child support obligation, and (2) an order of the same court (Parisi, S.M.), also dated June 25, 2010, which, after the same hearing, granted the mother's petition in Proceeding No. 2 for child support arrears.
ORDERED that the order dated August 19, 2010, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A party seeking downward modification of a child support obligation has the burden of establishing a change in circumstances ( see Matter of Dinhofer v. Zabezhanskaya, 79 A.D.3d 1039, 1040, 912 N.Y.S.2d 899; Matter of Piernick v. Nazinitsky, 48 A.D.3d 690, 850 N.Y.S.2d 914). “A parent's loss of employment may constitute a change of circumstances warranting a downward modification of child support if it is demonstrated that the noncustodial parent has diligently sought reemployment” ( Matter of McAndrew v. McAndrew, 84 A.D.3d 1381, 1382, 924 N.Y.S.2d 549; see Ritchey v. Ritchey, 82 A.D.3d 948, 949, 920 N.Y.S.2d 105). Here, however, the father failed to establish that he made a good-faith effort to obtain new employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience ( see Matter of Awwad v. Awwad, 62 A.D.3d 695, 880 N.Y.S.2d 292; Matter of D'Altilio v. D'Altilio, 14 A.D.3d 701, 789 N.Y.S.2d 270).
Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father's objections to the Support*469 Magistrate's order denying the father's petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.
The father's remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court ( see Matter of Betancourt v. Betancourt, 71 A.D.3d 764, 895 N.Y.S.2d 739).
PRUDENTI, P.J., RIVERA, AUSTIN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.