Opinion
October 13, 1992
Appeal from the Family Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.).
Ordered that the order entered March 1, 1990, is affirmed, with costs.
Based upon a change in circumstances, the petitioner mother sought the upward modification of an award of child support set nine years previously. To support her petition, the mother cited increases in her expenses due to the child's growing needs and the cost of living, as well as significant improvements in the father's employment situation and earnings, all factors indicating a change in circumstances as set forth in the leading case of Matter of Brescia v Fitts ( 56 N.Y.2d 132, 141). After hearing the witnesses and evaluating the evidence submitted, the Hearing Examiner determined that a change in circumstances warranting an increase in child support had, indeed, occurred.
Where the petitioner's purpose is not to reallocate the respective support obligations of the parties as enunciated in an agreement between them (see, Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 N.Y.2d 210), but, as here, to provide adequate support for the child, the "change of circumstances" standard as enunciated in Matter of Brescia v Fitts (supra) is applicable. The petitioner has met her burden of establishing the change of circumstances warranting an increase in child support in the best interests of the child (see, Matter of Brescia v Fitts, supra; Matter of Michaels v Michaels, 56 N.Y.2d 924, 926; DeVenuti v DeVenuti, 170 A.D.2d 573). By her testimony and financial disclosure affidavit, the mother offered unrefuted evidence of the Brescia factors supporting her petition and considered by the courts in substantiating increased awards (i.e., increased expenses and needs and the other spouse's ability to pay) (see also, Matter of Ragazzo v Murray, 175 A.D.2d 247; DeVenuti v DeVenuti, supra; Hughes v Serviss, 168 A.D.2d 541; Matter of Bruhn v McCready, 138 A.D.2d 374).
Because the mother provided adequate documentation of her additional expenses, and because the Hearing Examiner was in the best position to hear and evaluate the evidence as well as her credibility (see, Creem v Creem, 121 A.D.2d 676, 677; Hendrey v Hendrey, 110 A.D.2d 753), we decline to disturb the findings of fact (see, Matter of La Blanc v La Blanc, 96 A.D.2d 670).
We have examined the father's remaining contentions and find them lacking in merit. Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.