Opinion
April 20, 1995
Appeal from the Family Court of Columbia County (Zittell, J.).
Less than three weeks after the entry of an order of support which directed respondent to pay child and spousal support in the amount of $233 per week, respondent moved to modify the order. According to respondent, he resigned his management position with an insurance company because of an anticipated decrease in earnings. He returned to a sales position with the same company which he thought would be more lucrative, but the company closed the office where he was working. According to respondent, he had to take a job with the company in a different office where he expected to earn substantially less than the earnings upon which the support order was based.
After a hearing, the Hearing Examiner concluded that respondent had voluntarily reduced his income (see, Matter of Chenango County Support Collection Unit v De Brie, 100 A.D.2d 687). Family Court, however, concluded that regardless of whether respondent had voluntarily reduced his income, he had failed to establish a change of circumstances sufficient to justify a downward modification of support. On this appeal, respondent contends that because he presented some evidence to support his claim of a decrease in his financial ability to pay support his application should have been granted in the absence of any rebuttal evidence from petitioner. We disagree.
As the party seeking to modify a prior order of support, respondent bore the burden of proof to establish a substantial change in circumstances (see, e.g., Mitchell v Mitchell, 170 A.D.2d 585). Determinations of respondent's credibility as a witness and the weight to be given to his testimony were matters for Family Court, and we see no basis in the record to disturb its decision. Respondent's self-serving statements about his financial condition, which were often indefinite, speculative and conclusory, were insufficient to meet his burden (see, Stock v Stock, 202 A.D.2d 914, 915). We also note that although respondent is entitled to attempt to improve his vocational lot, the courts will not require the children to subsidize a parent's financial decision (see, e.g., Matter of Westwater v Donnelly, 204 A.D.2d 467, 468).
Cardona, P.J., Mikoll, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.