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: Gamal Mofadal, appellant, v. Nada Abdelhadi, respondent.
Submitted—October 3, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Elkins, J.), dated August 12, 2010, which granted the mother's objections to an order of the same court (Milsap, S.M.), dated June 8, 2010, which, after a hearing, granted the father's petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation and, thereupon, vacated the order dated June 8, 2010.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The father sought a downward modification of his child support obligation set forth in an order of the Family Court dated January 20, 2010, on the ground that an increase in his expenses since the date of that order constituted a substantial change in circumstances. By order dated June 8, 2010, the Family Court, after a hearing, granted the father's petition for a downward modification. By order dated August 12, 2010, the Family Court granted the mother's objections to the order dated June 8, 2010, and, thereupon, vacated the order dated June 8, 2010. The father appeals, and we affirm.
“[I]n determining whether there has been a substantial change in circumstances, the change is measured by comparing the payor's financial situation at the time of the application for a downward modification with that at the time of the order sought to be modified” (Matter of Mera v. Rodriguez, 74 AD3d 974 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Here, the Family Court found, in effect, that the financial documentation the father submitted to the Support Magistrate provided an incomplete account of his finances and medical expenses and, therefore, that the father failed to establish the requisite change of circumstances that would warrant a downward modification of his child support obligation (see Family Ct Act § 413[1][a] ). Upon our review of the record, we find no basis to disturb that determination (see Basile v. Wiggs, 82 AD3d 921, 922).
SKELOS, J.P., CHAMBERS, SGROI and MILLER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2010–09798 (Docket No. F–9258–09)
Decided: October 18, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)