Opinion
April 12, 1999
Appeal from the Family Court, Putnam County (Sweeny, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Family Court did not err in dismissing the father's petition to modify his child support obligation. The child support amount was established in the parties' stipulation of settlement which was entered into in open court. The stipulation was subsequently incorporated into the parties' divorce judgment, but did not merge in it. Contrary to the father's contentions, nothing in the stipulation reveals an intention that a party could seek modification of the amount of the child support obligation without a showing of a change in circumstances. Indeed, a statement of the father's attorney during the reading of the stipulation on the record in the divorce action clearly shows that a party seeking the modification of the amount of the child support obligation would be required to demonstrate a change in circumstances. Moreover, Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (9) (b) requires proof of a change in circumstances in any child support modification proceeding ( see also, Cohen v. Cohen, 249 A.D.2d 499; How field v. How field, 250 A.D.2d 573). Absent a clear intention to the contrary, that statutory requirement may not be dispensed with.
The father's petition was also insufficient on its face, since all the items set forth by him as constituting a change in circumstance either existed or could have been reasonably anticipated by the parties on the date the stipulation of settlement was entered into.
The Family Court also properly declined to declare the stipulation of settlement invalid as it lacked jurisdiction to do so ( see, Kleila v. Kleila, 50 N.Y.2d 277; see also, Matter of McKeown v. Woessner, 249 A.D.2d 396).
Altman, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.