| Matter of Gedacht v Agulnek |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08822 [67 AD3d 1013] |
| November 24, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Michael G. Gedacht, Appellant, v KarenS. Agulnek, Respondent. |
—[*1] Lewis A. Silverman, Central Islip, N.Y. (Amanda Green and Amanda Perticone on thebrief), for respondent.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals, aslimited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffman,J.), dated May 28, 2009, as denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Buse,S.M.), dated April 2, 2009, as, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modificationof his child support obligation.
Ordered that the order dated May 28, 2009, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, withoutcosts or disbursements.
A parent seeking downward modification of a child support obligation has the burden ofestablishing a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances (see Matter of Fowler v Rivera, 40AD3d 1093, 1094 [2007]; Matter of Prisco v Buxbaum, 275 AD2d 461 [2000]). Inorder to meet that burden, a party seeking a downward modification based on a loss ofemployment must submit evidence demonstrating that he or she has diligently sought to obtainemployment commensurate with that party's earning capacity (see Matter of Muselevichus vMuselevichus, 40 AD3d 997, 998 [2007]; Matter of Yepes v Fichera, 230 AD2d803, 804 [1996]; Matter of Meyer v Meyer, 205 AD2d 784 [1994]; see also Matter ofDavis v Davis, 197 AD2d 622, 623 [1993]).
Here, the unsubstantiated conclusory allegations of the father that he diligently soughtemployment commensurate with his qualifications and experience were insufficient to meet hisburden (see Matter of Yepes v Fichera, 230 AD2d at 804; Barson v Barson, 32 AD3d 872,873 [2006]). Therefore, the Support Magistrate properly denied the father's petition for adownward modification of his child support obligation (see Matter of Muselevichus vMuselevichus, 40 AD3d at 999; Matter of Yepes v Fichera, 230 AD2d at 804), andthe Family Court properly denied the father's objections to so much of the order of the SupportMagistrate as denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.Prudenti, P.J., Skelos, Covello and Austin, JJ., concur.