Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Proceeding, etc., COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES, etc., Petitioner-Respondent, v. Elder MERCHANT, Respondent-Appellant.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about August 13, 2001, which denied respondent's objections to the Hearing Examiner's June 13, 2001 order of support denying respondent's application for a downward modification of his child support obligation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent, in seeking downward modification of his child support obligation, failed to meet his burden to demonstrate a substantial, unanticipated or unavoidable change in circumstances rendering it unreasonable to require him to continue to pay child support at the level ordered (see O'Brien v. McCann, 249 A.D.2d 92, 93, 671 N.Y.S.2d 458; and see Mancini v. Borowicz, 271 A.D.2d 789, 791, 705 N.Y.S.2d 450). Respondent was on notice for eight years that he would lose his teaching license if he failed to obtain a master's degree. Accordingly, his loss of his license for failing to obtain a master's degree was not unanticipated (cf. Mancini v. Borowicz, supra ). Moreover, the evidence indicates that respondent's failure to obtain a master's degree within the requisite time was the consequence of his own volitional choices and was thus not unavoidable and, for that reason as well, not a proper predicate for his application to reduce his child support obligation (see David W. v. Julia W., 158 A.D.2d 1, 7-8, 557 N.Y.S.2d 314).
Respondent's remaining contentions are unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: October 31, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)