Opinion
December 8, 1997
Appeal from the Family Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
When one parent seeks to increase the support obligations of the other parent based upon increased needs, it is not necessary to show an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances, because the increase is predicated on the children's right to receive adequate support (see, Matter of Michaels v. Michaels, 56 N.Y.2d 924, 926; Matter of Brescia v. Fitts, 56 N.Y.2d 132; Haimowitz v. Gerber, 153 A.D.2d 879). However, the increased support is warranted only where the movant sets forth specific increased expenses on behalf of the child as opposed to merely a general claim that the children's needs have increased as the child matured or as a result of inflation (see, Matter of Hogan v. Eriksen, 228 A.D.2d 505; Matter of Halliday v. Taddeo, 223 A.D.2d 542; Matter of Staffanell v. Staffanell, 220 A.D.2d 751; Rocchio v. Rocchio, 213 A.D.2d 535; Matter of Adams-Eppes v. Fulton, 195 A.D.2d 455; Zucker v. Zucker, 187 A.D.2d 507, 509).
Here, the Family Court properly found that the mother failed to satisfy her burden of proving specific increased needs of the parties' children which warrant an increase in child support (see, Matter of Staffanell v. Staffanell, supra; Matter of Adams-Eppes v. Fulton, supra; Zucker v. Zucker, supra).
Mangano, P.J., Copertino, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.