From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Ives v. Ives

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 18, 1984
105 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

October 18, 1984

Appeal from the Family Court of Albany County (Coffey, Jr., J.).


Petitioner contends that Family Court erred in failing to comply with statutory mandates and applicable case law when it denied her request to increase an existing Family Court order dated November 26, 1975, which, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, fixed the amount of support to be paid by respondent (see Family Ct Act, § 413).

The record demonstrates that the respective financial statuses of the parties were before the court and explored in detail at a hearing where both parties were subjected to cross-examination. Although the written decision of the court upon which its order was based did not contain evidentiary facts, it adequately stated the ultimate facts upon which the parties' rights and liabilities depended (see Matter of Jose L.I., 46 N.Y.2d 1024; Matter of Priester v Harp, 99 A.D.2d 900; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N.Y. v George C., 78 A.D.2d 541). Moreover, while section 413 FCT of the Family Court Act enumerates the factors to be considered by a court in awarding child support, there is no requirement that they be enumerated in the court's decision (see CPLR 4213, subd [b]).

Since petitioner alleges a mere change in circumstances as a basis for increased support, this proceeding is one to readjust the respective obligations of the parties (see Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 N.Y.2d 132). Accordingly, to succeed, petitioner must demonstrate that the stipulation and resulting order in 1975 were unfair and inequitable when entered into or that an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances has occurred ( supra, at p. 138). This record does not support such conclusions. Additionally, any claim for increased support for college education is premature ( Matter of F.L.C. v E.W.P., 49 A.D.2d 263, 267).

The decision of Family Court on these issues and the request for counsel fees should therefore not be disturbed (see Walsh v Walsh, 92 A.D.2d 345).

Orders affirmed, without costs. Kane, J.P., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Ives v. Ives

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 18, 1984
105 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Matter of Ives v. Ives

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of CONSTANCE M. IVES, Appellant, v. RALPH IVES, Respondent

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

Date published: Oct 18, 1984

Citations

105 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Matter of Ives v. Ives

Decided April 25, 1985 Appeal from (3d dept: 105 A.D.2d 527) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO…

Matter of Hulik v. Hulik

Likewise without merit is respondent's contention that the parties' change in circumstances warranted an…