Opinion
2001-09911
Submitted October 7, 2002.
November 4, 2002.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to the Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (DePhillips, J.), dated October 15, 2001, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Clark, H.E.), dated May 24, 2001, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the mother's petition for an upward modification of child support.
Eric Dubinsky, Carle Place, N.Y., for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Kathleen Alberton of counsel), for respondent.
Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The father's contention that the mother failed to show a change in circumstances warranting an upward modification of child support is unpreserved for appellate review, as that issue was not raised before the hearing examiner or in the objections before the Family Court (see Matter of Coleman v Thomas, 295 A.D.2d 508). In any event, the mother successfully demonstrated a change in circumstances by setting forth specific increased expenses of the two subject children (see Family Court Act § 461[b][ii]; Matter of Michaels v. Michaels, 56 N.Y.2d 924, 926; Matter of Staffanell v. Staffanell, 220 A.D.2d 751). Furthermore, the court correctly applied the Child Support Standards Act formula in arriving at the amount of the upward modification, as application of that formula is mandatory (see Family Court Act § 413[c]; Bast v. Rossoff, 91 N.Y.2d 723, 728; Matter of Thomas v. DeFalco, 270 A.D.2d 277, 278; Matter of Alice C. v. Bernard G. C., 193 A.D.2d 97, 111).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.
SMITH, J.P., McGINITY, LUCIANO and CRANE, JJ., concur.