| Matter of Field v Field |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08821 [67 AD3d 1012] |
| November 24, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Darinda Field, Respondent, v GregoryField, Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals froman order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffmann, J.), dated January 23, 2009, whichdenied his objections to an order of the same court (Rodriguez, S.M.), dated October 22, 2008,which, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child supportobligation and granted the mother's petition for child support arrears.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court properly denied the father's objections to the Support Magistrate's orderdenying his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation set forth in astipulation of settlement incorporated, but not merged, in the parties' judgment of divorce. Thechild support provisions contained in a settlement agreement should not be disturbed unless thereis a substantial, unanticipated, and unreasonable change in circumstances since the entry of thedivorce judgment (see Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 212-213 [1977]; Matter of Ripa v Ripa, 61 AD3d766 [2009]). In order to meet that burden, a party seeking a downward modification basedon a loss of employment must submit evidence showing a good faith effort to obtain employmentcommensurate with that party's earning capacity (see Matter of Fowler v Rivera, 40 AD3d 1093, 1094 [2007]). Thefather's conclusory allegations were not sufficient to support his claim that he used his bestefforts to obtain employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience (see Matter of D'Altilio v D'Altilio, 14AD3d 701 [2005]; Barson vBarson, 32 AD3d 872, 873 [2006]).
The father's remaining contention is without merit (see Matter of Maurer v Erdheim,292 AD2d 455 [2002]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.