You are here: / / Standard for Upward Child Support Modification, Agreement Incorporated...
,

Standard for Upward Child Support Modification, Agreement Incorporated But Not Merged.

This case, which was not affected by the 2010 amendment to Family Court Act section 451(2)(a), includes a clear discussion of the criteria for an upward modification of a child support obligation where a party is seeking to modify “a child support provision derived from an agreement or stipulation incorporated but not merged into a divorce decree…”.  The party seeking modification “has the burden of proving that the agreement was unfair or inequitable when entered into or that an unanticipated and unreasonable change of circumstances has occurred resulting in a concomitant increased need or that the needs of the child are not being adequately met…”.  Matter of Overbaugh vs Schettini, 515079 Third Dept. 2-14-13

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE CONVICTIONS WERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).
In a DWI Case, Operation Proved by Circumstantial Evidence
THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY, REQUIRING A “BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD” HEARING; THE APPELLATE COURT ORDERED A “BEST INTERESTS” HEARING, INCLUDING A LINCOLN HEARING, AND ORDERED THE APPOINTMENT OF A NEW ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD BECAUSE THE PRESENT ATTORNEY HAD EXPRESSED AN OPINION ON THE APPROPRIATE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT (THIRD DEPT).
THE DEFENDANTS SOUGHT REFORMATION OF AN INSURANCE POLICY ALLEGING THE FAILURE TO NAME THEM INDIVIDUALLY AS INSUREDS WAS DUE TO A MUTUAL MISTAKE; THE 3RD DEPARTMENT, OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, REVERSED SUPREME COURT AND HELD THE COMPLAINT FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT).
THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BY DISMISSING TWO CHARGES BECAUSE OF THEIR PUPORTED FACIAL DEFICIENCIES AND FAILING TO ASSESSS THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CHARGES (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT’S RECEIPT OF STRIKE BENEFITS DID NOT DISQUALIFY HIM FROM RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
correspondence which was intended to lead to a settlement agreement (re: real property taxes) did not create a binding agreement
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RESENTENCED ON THE ORIGINAL CHARGE PURSUANT TO CPL 420.10 FOR FAILURE TO PAY RESTITUTION; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR RESENTENCING UNDER THAT STATUTE; RESENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Neglect for Allowing Children to Be Driven by Intoxicated Driver. Check Cashing Business Could Not Be Excluded by Zoning Measure