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.
Matter of Victoria BUTTO, f/k/a Victoria M. Twietmeyer, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Don H. TWIETMEYER, Respondent-Appellant.
Family Court erred in denying respondent's first and second objections and in failing to grant in its entirety respondent's fifth objection to the order of the Hearing Examiner granting petitioner an upward modification of child support. Petitioner failed to establish that the original amount of support to which the parties stipulated at the time of their divorce was inadequate to meet the child's needs (see, Merl v. Merl, 67 N.Y.2d 359, 362, 502 N.Y.S.2d 712, 493 N.E.2d 936; Matter of Brescia v. Fitts, 56 N.Y.2d 132, 139-140, 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). The Hearing Examiner properly considered petitioner's loss of employment (see, Matter of Brescia v. Fitts, supra, at 141, 451 N.Y.S.2d 68, 436 N.E.2d 518). Petitioner, however, made only generalized claims that the child's needs have increased (see, Matter of Tripi v. Faiello, 195 A.D.2d 958, 600 N.Y.S.2d 876, lv. dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 803, 604 N.Y.S.2d 560, 624 N.E.2d 698) and did not “provide specific dollar amounts of the increase in the costs ‘related to the [child's] basic necessities of food, shelter, clothing and medical and dental needs, as well as to the expenses associated with the [child's] varied interests and school activities' ” (McArthur v. Bell [appeal No. 2], 201 A.D.2d 974, 609 N.Y.S.2d 713, lv. dismissed 83 N.Y.2d 906, 614 N.Y.S.2d 388, 637 N.E.2d 279 lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 809, 628 N.Y.S.2d 52, 651 N.E.2d 920).
Respondent also is entitled to reimbursement for day care expenses pursuant to the oral stipulation of the parties at the time of the divorce. We modify the order by granting respondent's first and second objections, by providing that petitioner is not entitled to an upward modification of child support and by vacating the first ordering paragraph of the order of the Hearing Examiner and by granting in its entirety respondent's fifth objection and awarding respondent $1,511.29 for unreimbursed day care expenses.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 12, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)