Opinion
12-21-2016
In the Matter of David James ZAVECKAS, appellant, v. Yamilee SENAT, respondent.
Howard R. Teichner, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant. Ramo, Nashak, Brown & Garibaldi, LLP, Glendale, N.Y. (Deborah M. Garibaldi of counsel), for respondent.
Howard R. Teichner, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant.
Ramo, Nashak, Brown & Garibaldi, LLP, Glendale, N.Y. (Deborah M. Garibaldi of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the father from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Connie Gonzalez, J.), dated December 2, 2015. The order denied the father's objections to an order of that court (Joette M. Blaustein, S.M.), dated October 19, 2015, which, after a hearing, in effect, denied the father's petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.ORDERED that the order dated December 2, 2015, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A party seeking a modification of a child support order bears the burden of establishing a change in circumstances warranting the modification (see Matter of Ealy v. Levy–Hill, 140 A.D.3d 1164, 1165, 33 N.Y.S.3d 754 ; Matter of Nenninger v. Tonnessen, 113 A.D.3d 619, 977 N.Y.S.2d 897 ). Here, the record supports the Support Magistrate's determination that the father failed to establish a sufficient change in circumstances. Specifically, the father failed to submit competent medical evidence of his alleged disability (see Matter of Straker v. Maynard–Straker, 133 A.D.3d 865, 866, 21 N.Y.S.3d 288 ; Matter of Mikhlin v. Giuffrida, 119 A.D.3d 692, 693, 988 N.Y.S.2d 700 ; Matter of Gavin v. Worner, 112 A.D.3d 928, 929, 978 N.Y.S.2d 90 ; Matter of Rodriguez v. Mendoza–Gonzalez, 96 A.D.3d 766, 767, 946 N.Y.S.2d 204 ), and he did not show that he had diligently sought re-employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience (see Matter of Marrale v. Marrale, 44 A.D.3d 773, 776, 843 N.Y.S.2d 407 ; Matter of Davis v. Davis, 13 A.D.3d 623, 624, 787 N.Y.S.2d 113 ; Matter of McCarthy v. McCarthy, 2 A.D.3d 735, 769 N.Y.S.2d 590 ). Accordingly, the Support Magistrate properly, in effect, denied the father's petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation, and the Family Court properly denied the father's objections to the order denying his petition.
RIVERA, J.P., CHAMBERS, ROMAN and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.