You are here: / / LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF MAINTENANCE...
,

LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT, NO SHOWING FATHER WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR LOSING THE JOB, BECAUSE FATHER DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARGUMENT MUST BE BASED UPON EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department affirmed Family Court’s denial of father’s petition for downward modification of maintenance and support and the rejection of father’s claim he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The court noted that father did not demonstrate he was not at fault for losing his job and that, because father did not have a right to counsel for these proceedings, he was required to show extraordinary circumstances in support of his ineffective assistance claim:

A party seeking a downward modification of his or her spousal maintenance and child support obligations set forth in a judgment of divorce must establish a substantial change in circumstances … . Loss of employment may constitute a substantial change in circumstances where the termination occurred through no fault of the party seeking modification and he or she diligently sought re-employment commensurate with his or her earning capacity… . Here, the father failed to establish that the termination of his employment did not occur though his own fault … , or that he diligently sought new employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience. Accordingly, we agree with the Family Court’s denial of the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s finding that the father was not entitled to a downward modification of his support obligations… .

The father contends that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Since the father did not have the right to assigned counsel in this support modification proceeding… , he must establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances in order for his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to be entertained… . Here, the father failed to establish the existence of any extraordinary circumstances to warrant entertaining such a claim … . Matter of Berg v Berg, 2018 NY Slip Op 07720, Second Dept 11-14-18

FAMILY LAW (MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT, NO SHOWING FATHER WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR LOSING THE JOB, BECAUSE FATHER DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARGUMENT MUST BE BASED UPON EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (SECOND DEPT))/MAINTENANCE (FAMILY LAW, LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT, NO SHOWING FATHER WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR LOSING THE JOB, BECAUSE FATHER DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARGUMENT MUST BE BASED UPON EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPORT FAMILY LAW, LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT, NO SHOWING FATHER WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR LOSING THE JOB, BECAUSE FATHER DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARGUMENT MUST BE BASED UPON EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT, NO SHOWING FATHER WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR LOSING THE JOB, BECAUSE FATHER DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARGUMENT MUST BE BASED UPON EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (SECOND DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FAMILY LAW, LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT, NO SHOWING FATHER WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR LOSING THE JOB, BECAUSE FATHER DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARGUMENT MUST BE BASED UPON EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (SECOND DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FAMILY LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT, NO SHOWING FATHER WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR LOSING THE JOB, BECAUSE FATHER DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARGUMENT MUST BE BASED UPON EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL (PARKING LOT RAMP); THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROCESS SERVER WAS AWARE DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS IN THE MILITARY; THE “AFFIX AND MAIL” METHOD OF SERVICE DID NOT OBTAIN JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
ATTORNEY ENTITLED TO FEES PURSUANT TO QUANTUM MERUIT DESPITE FAILURE TO FILE A RETAINER STATEMENT AND THE ABSENCE OF A FEE SHARING AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).
No “Special Relationship” Between Plaintiff and City, City Not Liable for Shooting of the Plaintiff by a Civilian as Police Were Leaving the Scene of a Disturbance
​HERE THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRESENT A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR OR ANSWER AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF A POTENTIALLY MERITORIOUS DEFENSE; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED DEFENDANTS AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).
THE ELECTRICAL STUB UP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION; THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING PASSAGEWAYS TO BE KEPT CLEAR OF DEBRIS GENERALLY DO NOT APPLY TO AN OBSTRUCTION WHICH IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF CONSTRUCTION; HERE THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SAFETY MARKERS CALLING ATTENTION TO THE STUB UPS APPARENTLY BROUGHT THE FACTS WITHIN THE REACH OF THOSE “KEEP PASSAGEWAYS FREE OF DEBRIS” CODE PROVISIONS (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED AND INDICTED WHILE OUT ON BAIL; THE COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING BEFORE REVOKING THE ORDER RELEASING DEFENDANT ON BAIL (SECOND DEPT).
A MOTION TO VACATE AN ORDER SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE JUDGE WHO MADE THE ORDER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (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

ALTHOUGH FATHER HAD COMPLETED THE PERIOD OF INCARCERATION IMPOSED IN THIS SUPPORT... DECEDENT DIED INTESTATE, COTENANTS’ INTERESTS IN THE REAL PROPERTY VESTED...