From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Gentry v. Littlewood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 16, 2000
269 A.D.2d 846 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

February 16, 2000

Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Dillon, J. — Support.

PRESENT: WISNER, J. P., HURLBUTT, SCUDDER AND LAWTON, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed.

Memorandum:

Family Court erred in determining that petitioner met her burden of proof on her petition for an upward modification of child support. A stipulation settling the issue of child support was incorporated but not merged in a judgment of divorce entered in December 1994. In September 1995 petitioner filed the present petition, alleging that the needs of the children were not being adequately met. At the hearing before a Hearing Examiner in 1996 petitioner failed to present any documentary or other supporting proof of specific unmet needs ( see, Webb v. Webb, 197 A.D.2d 847, 847-848). Her "generalized claims that the child[ren]'s needs have increased * * * do not warrant an upward modification of support" ( Matter of Tripi v. Faiello, 195 A.D.2d 958, lv dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 803). "The party seeking upward modification must provide specific dollar amounts of the increase in the cost 'related to the child[ren]'s basic necessities of food, shelter, clothing and medical and dental needs, as well as to the expenses associated with the child[ren]'s varied interests and school activities'" ( McArthur v. Bell [appeal No. 2], 201 A.D.2d 974, 975, lv dismissed 83 N.Y.2d 906, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 809).

We reject petitioner's contention that this issue is not properly before us. Respondent did not file a notice of appeal until entry of the order fixing his support obligation under the Child Support Standards Act. His appeal from that final order of disposition brings up for review the nonfinal order determining that the needs of the children were not being met under the stipulation ( see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; see also, Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; Dompkowski v. Dompkowski, 154 A.D.2d 950, 951). Because petitioner did not take an appeal, her contention with respect to the amount of attorney's fees awarded is not properly before us.


Summaries of

Matter of Gentry v. Littlewood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 16, 2000
269 A.D.2d 846 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Matter of Gentry v. Littlewood

Case Details

Full title:MATTER OF NANCY GENTRY, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. DOUGLAS LITTLEWOOD…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Feb 16, 2000

Citations

269 A.D.2d 846 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
703 N.Y.S.2d 639

Citing Cases

Steeno v. Szydlowski

Indeed, while this appeal was pending, the court entered an order resolving issues concerning the mother's…

Matter of Joseph M. W. v. Crystal B. R

Assuming, arguendo, that the record supports that contention, we conclude that "the determination of a…