You are here: / / Father Demonstrated His Loss of Employment Justified a Downward Modification...

Father Demonstrated His Loss of Employment Justified a Downward Modification of Child Support

The Second Department determined Family Court erred when it held father had not demonstrated his loss of employment constituted a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances justifying a downward modification of his child support obligations:

Loss of employment may at times constitute a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances … . A party seeking a downward modification of his or her child support obligation based upon a loss of employment has the burden of demonstrating that he or she diligently sought to obtain employment commensurate with his or her earning capacity … .

Here, the father testified that he is unable to pay child support because he lost his prior job in October 2010. More specifically, he stated that he had been working at a restaurant in the dual capacity of manager and head waiter. Following his loss of that employment, he sought and obtained a position as a manager at a restaurant at a lesser salary, but could not find a position working in the dual capacity of manager and head waiter.

Under these circumstances, the father demonstrated that his loss of employment and obtainment of new employment at a lesser salary constituted a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances, and that he made a good faith effort to obtain new employment which was commensurate with his qualifications and experience… .  Matter of Dimaio v Dimaio, 2013 NY Slip Op 07969, 2nd Dept 11-27-13

 

 

You might also like
Criteria Re: Counties’ and Foster Care Agencies’ Liability for the Acts of Foster Parents Explained
CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION (CSLI) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT WAS PROCURED WITHOUT A WARRANT, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER, SENTENCES FOR CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT AND CRIMINAL IMPERSONATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS ALL-TERRAIN-VEHICLE (ATV) ACCIDENT CASE, THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DRIVER UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK TO PLAINTIFF-PASSENGER THEREBY PRECLUDING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSUMPTION-OF-THE-RISK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
Defective Handrail Could Have Been Factor in Plaintiff’s Injuries.
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN A TIRE STORED ON THE ROOF OF A SHED FELL AND STRUCK THE LADDER, THE TIRE WAS NOT BEING HOISTED AND DID NOT NEED TO BE SECURED FOR THE PURPOSES OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THE ACCIDENT THEREFORE WAS NOT COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
CONTRACT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CONSTRUCTION MANAGER HAD SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY AND CONTROL TO BE HELD LIABLE FOR A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD IN THIS LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE DEFECT IN THE STAIRWAY WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND 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

Evidence Relevant to a Reason to Fabricate is Never Collateral New York Had Continuing Exclusive Jurisdiction Re: Custody of Child Living With...