Matter of Jewett v Monfoletto
2010 NY Slip Op 02953 [72 AD3d 688]
April 6, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 9, 2010


In the Matter of Tracy L. Jewett, Respondent,
v
MarkMonfoletto, Appellant.

[*1]Benjamin J. Klemanowicz, Jr., P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Richard Vande Stouwe of counsel),for appellant.

Tracy L. Jewett, Virginia Beach, Virginia, respondent pro se.

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5-B, the father appealsfrom an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffman, J.), dated May 19, 2009, whichdenied his objections to an order of the same court (Raimondi, S.M.) dated February 23, 2009,which, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition for an upward modification of his childsupport obligations set forth in a child support order dated July 27, 1998, which was enteredupon his consent.

Ordered that the order dated May 19, 2009, is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the father's contention, the mother was not required to demonstrate anunanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances to justify an increase in child supportwhere, as here, the mother was not seeking to modify a separation agreement incorporated, butnot merged, into a judgment of divorce (cf. Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132,138-140 [1982]; Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 213 [1977]). Where a party isseeking to modify a prior court order of child support, the party need only demonstrate a changein circumstances sufficient to warrant a modification (see Family Ct Act § 461 [b][ii]; Matter of Franklin v Franklin, 268 AD2d 814 [2000]; Matter of Strack vStrack, 225 AD2d 872, 873 [1996]; cf. Matter of Fein v Gilchrist, 23 AD3d 558 [2005]; Weiss vWeiss, 294 AD2d 566, 567 [2002]). The Family Court properly found that the petitioner haddemonstrated such change here.

The father's remaining contentions are either improperly raised for the first time on appeal,or without merit (cf. Matter of Iadanzav Boeger, 58 AD3d 733, 734 [2009]; Matter of Confort v Nicolai, 309 AD2d861, 862 [2003]; Matter of Erickson v Schroth, 245 AD2d 289, 290 [1997]). Skelos, J.P.,Santucci, Angiolillo and Chambers, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.