Opinion
2014-11915 Docket No. F-2230-13.
12-09-2015
In the Matter of Michael J. IPPOLITI, appellant, v. Laura A. IPPOLITI, respondent.
Michael J. Ippoliti, West Milford, New Jersey, appellant pro se. Mark D. Stern, Goshen, N.Y., for respondent.
Michael J. Ippoliti, West Milford, New Jersey, appellant pro se.
Mark D. Stern, Goshen, N.Y., for respondent.
Opinion
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Debra J. Kiedaisch, J.), dated December 1, 2014. The order denied the father's objections to an order of that court (Christine Patneaude Krahulik, S.M.), dated October 17, 2014, which, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.
ORDERED that the order dated December 1, 2014, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A party seeking to modify an order of child support has the burden of establishing the existence of a substantial change in circumstances warranting the modification (see Matter of Baumgardner v. Baumgardner, 126 A.D.3d 895, 896–897, 6 N.Y.S.3d 90; Matter of Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 114 A.D.3d 798, 798, 980 N.Y.S.2d 531; Matter of Suyunov v. Tarashchansky, 98 A.D.3d 744, 745, 950 N.Y.S.2d 399). A party's loss of employment may constitute a substantial change in circumstances (see Matter of Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 114 A.D.3d at 798, 980 N.Y.S.2d 531; Matter of Suyunov v. Tarashchansky, 98 A.D.3d at 745, 950 N.Y.S.2d 399; Matter of Ceballos v. Castillo, 85 A.D.3d 1161, 1162, 926 N.Y.S.2d 142). A party seeking downward modification of a child support obligation based on a loss of employment must submit competent proof that the loss of employment occurred through no fault of the party and the party has diligently sought re-employment commensurate with his or her earning capacity (see Matter of Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 114 A.D.3d at 798, 980 N.Y.S.2d 531; Ashmore v. Ashmore, 114 A.D.3d 712, 713, 981 N.Y.S.2d 427; Matter of Nenninger v. Tonnessen, 113 A.D.3d 619, 619, 977 N.Y.S.2d 897).
Here, the record supports the Support Magistrate's determination that the father failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances warranting a downward modification of his child support obligation. The father failed to establish that the termination of his employment did not involve his own fault (see Ashmore v. Ashmore, 114 A.D.3d at 713, 981 N.Y.S.2d 427). In any event, the father failed to adduce sufficient evidence to satisfy his burden of establishing that he diligently sought employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience (see Matter of Rolko v. Intini, 128 A.D.3d 705, 706, 9 N.Y.S.3d 101; Matter of Riendeau v. Riendeau, 95 A.D.3d 891, 892, 943 N.Y.S.2d 215; Matter of Peterson v. Peterson, 75 A.D.3d 512, 513, 904 N.Y.S.2d 500; Matter of Gedacht v. Agulnek, 67 A.D.3d 1013, 1013, 890 N.Y.S.2d 76). Thus, the Family Court properly denied the father's objections to the Support Magistrate's order denying his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.