You are here: / / Court Erred In Applying the “15% Increase in Income” Criteria for Support Mod...

Court Erred In Applying the “15% Increase in Income” Criteria for Support Modification to an Order Which Predated the 2010 Effective Date of the “15% Increase” Statutory Amendment/the 2008 Order Was Incorporated But Not Merged Into a 2012 Judgment

The Third Department determined Family Court erred in modifying child support based upon the father’s income having increased by 15%.  The 2008 child support order at issue pre-dated the 2010 effective date of the “15% increase” statutory amendment and the order was not merged with the 2012 judgment of divorce:

Family Court erred in finding that child support should be modified based on a 15% change in the father’s income.  Family Ct Act § 451 (2) (b) (ii) allows a court to modify an order of child support, without requiring a party to allege or demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances, where either party’s gross income has changed by 15% or more since the order was entered or modified.  When that provision was added to the statute through a 2010 amendment, however, the Legislature provided that “if the child support order incorporated without merging a valid agreement or stipulation of the parties, the amendments [to section 451] shall only apply if the incorporated agreement or stipulation was executed on or after [October 13, 2010]” (L 2010, ch 182, § 13).  The 2008 order was based upon the parties’ agreement, incorporated into the 2012 judgment of divorce and entered prior to the effective date of the statute’s 2010 amendments.  Accordingly, the amendments did not apply to a modification of this order, and Family Court should not have relied on the father’s 15% increase in income as the basis for modification.

For agreements executed prior to the effective date of the amendments to Family Ct Act § 451, the standard for modifying an order based on the parties’ agreement is whether the petitioning party has demonstrated “an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances” or that the children’s needs are not being met … .  The mother’s generalized testimony that the costs of food, health care and clothing for the children had increased, as had the father’s income, was insufficient to meet her burden under that standard … .  Matter of Zibell v Zibell, 516324, 3rd Dept 12-12-13

 

You might also like
SEPARATION AGREEMENT REQUIRED BOTH PARENTS TO CONTRIBUTE TO COLLEGE EXPENSES BUT DID NOT INDICATE HOW MUCH EACH PARTY SHOULD CONTRIBUTE, AGREEMENT BREACHED BY WIFE’S FAILURE TO PAY ANYTHING, FAMILY COURT TO DETERMINE EACH PARENT’S APPROPRIATE CONTRIBUTION (THIRD DEPT).
Testing and Monitoring Costs Associated with Remediation of a Petroleum Spill Are Taxable/Deference Is Accorded an Agency’s Interpretation of a Broadly-Worded Statute
CPLR 205 (A), WHICH ALLOWS AN ACTION TO BE REFILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF DISMISSAL, DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTIONS; THE DEFENDANTS WERE AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER WHICH STAYED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR FURTHER SUBMISSIONS AND THEREFORE COULD APPEAL THE ORDER (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A VIDEOTAPE OF THE UNDERLYING INCIDENT WAS IMPROPERLY DENIED, EVEN THOUGH THE REQUEST WAS MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING THE HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
Failure to Allege that But for the Legal Malpractice the Causes of Action Would Have Succeeded Required Dismissal
CLAIMANT’S BEHAVIOR, ALLEGED TO HAVE CONSTITUTED HARASSMENT AND INSUBORDINATION, DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF DISQUALIFYING MISCONDUCT, CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO EMPANEL AN ANONYMOUS JURY; ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED, NEW TRIAL GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).
Broken Sentence Promise Required Vacatur of the Guilty Plea

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Tenured Teacher Can Not Be Compelled to Testify In a Proceeding Where Such Testimony... Garagekeeper’s Lien Ineffective Against Owner of Leased Vehicle/Lessee Did...