| Matter of Kalarickal v Kalarickal |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08151 [89 AD3d 846] |
| November 9, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Alexander Kalarickal, Appellant, v LeenaKalarickal, Respondent. |
—[*1]
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals froman order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Horowitz, J.), entered September 28, 2010,which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Jordan, S.M.), entered May 26, 2010,which, after a hearing, in effect, denied his petition for a downward modification of his childsupport obligation as set forth in a stipulation of settlement dated Match 12, 2009, which wasincorporated but not merged into the parties' judgment of divorce.
Ordered that the order entered September 28, 2010, is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
The Family Court properly found that the father failed to meet his burden of demonstrating asubstantial and unanticipated change in circumstances warranting a downward modification ofhis child support obligation (see Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 212-213[1977]; Matter of Peterson vPeterson, 75 AD3d 512 [2010]). The father's child support obligation is not necessarilydetermined by his current financial condition but, rather, by his ability to provide support, as wellas his assets and earning powers (seeBasile v Wiggs, 82 AD3d 921 [2011]; Beard v Beard, 300 AD2d 268, 269[2002]; Matter of Fleischmann v Fleischmann, 195 AD2d 604 [1993]). Here, while thefather presented evidence of an unanticipated loss of employment, there was also evidence thathe is nonetheless possessed of sufficient means to provide support at the level ordered (see Matter of Talty v Talty, 42 AD3d546 [2007]).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father's objections to the order [*2]which, in effect, denied his petition for a downward modification ofhis child support obligation. Skelos, J.P., Hall, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.