Opinion
2014-07-9
In the Matter of Alexander MIKHLIN, appellant, v. Lisa M. GIUFFRIDA, respondent.
Cheryl Charles–Duval, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, SANDRA L. SGROI, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Katz, J.), dated June 5, 2013, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Fasone, S.M.) dated April 17, 2013, which, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.
ORDERED that the order dated June 5, 2013, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
To establish entitlement to a downward modification of a child support obligation entered on consent, a party has the burden of showing that there has been a substantial change in circumstances ( see Matter of Khoussa v. Peeple, 115 A.D.3d 954, 982 N.Y.S.2d 527;Matter of Grucci v. Villanti, 108 A.D.3d 626, 969 N.Y.S.2d 493). Loss of employment may at times constitute a substantial change in circumstances ( see Matter of Forman v. Frost, 67 A.D.3d 908, 909, 888 N.Y.S.2d 218;Matter of Yepes v. Fichera, 230 A.D.2d 803, 804, 646 N.Y.S.2d 533).
Here, the father failed to establish a substantial change in circumstances warranting a downward modification of his child support obligation. He testified that he was unable to work because he suffered from gout and depression. However, he failed to present credible evidence at the hearing to show that his symptoms or conditions at the time of the petition and hearing prevented him from working. Evidence that the father was receiving Social Security disability benefits does not, by itself, demonstrate the father's inability to work ( see Matter of Gavin v. Worner, 112 A.D.3d 928, 978 N.Y.S.2d 90;Matter of Rodriguez v. Mendoza–Gonzalez, 96 A.D.3d 766, 767, 946 N.Y.S.2d 204). Furthermore, the father failed to provide competent evidence with respect to his finances ( see generally Basile v. Wiggs, 82 A.D.3d 921, 920 N.Y.S.2d 103;Matter of Moran v. Moran, 56 A.D.3d 675, 676, 869 N.Y.S.2d 107).
Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father's objection to the order denying his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.