NUCHERENO v. PECORA (2000)

Petitioner's application for an upward modification of child support was properly denied without a hearing (see, Matter of Murphy v. Rutowicz, 271 A.D.2d 691, 707 N.Y.S.2d 350;  Kamerman v. Kamerman, 269 A.D.2d 165, 702 N.Y.S.2d 77;  Matter of Kotlyar v. Burshtein, 268 A.D.2d 433, 434, 701 N.Y.S.2d 632;  Beck v. Beck, 236 A.D.2d 703, 704, 653 N.Y.S.2d 211).   The record establishes that the parties' respective incomes are such that, upon application of the standards in the Child Support Standards Act (Family Ct. Act § 413), respondent's child support obligation would be reduced below the level set in the parties' 1992 settlement agreement, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce.   In any event, the petition fails to allege that there has been an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances warranting an adjustment of support or that the current level of support is inadequate to meet the children's basic needs (see, Matter of Brescia v. Fitts, 56 N.Y.2d 132, 140-141, 451 N.Y.S.2d 68, 436 N.E.2d 518;  Matter of Boden v. Boden, 42 N.Y.2d 210, 213, 397 N.Y.S.2d 701, 366 N.E.2d 791).   We have considered petitioner's remaining contention and conclude that it is lacking in merit.

Order unanimously affirmed with costs.

MEMORANDUM: