| Matter of LoCasto v Chiofolo |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08152 [89 AD3d 847] |
| November 9, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Alyssa LoCasto, Respondent, v PeterChiofolo, Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals froman order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Hickey, S.M.), dated August 31, 2010, whichgranted the mother's petition for an upward modification of the father's child support obligation.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The mother and the father are the parents of a child born in 2007. In June 2008 the FamilyCourt entered an order directing the father to pay the sum of $50 per month in child support,based in part on the father's status as a full-time student. On May 26, 2010, the mother filed theinstant petition for an upward modification of the father's child support obligation on the groundthat the father was no longer a full-time student. At the ensuing hearing, the father testified thathe earned $18.15 per hour, but only worked 15 hours per week. The Family Court imputed anincome of $33,000 per year to the father by applying his hourly earnings rate to a 35-hour workweek. In an order dated August 31, 2010, the Family Court granted the mother's petition, andmodified the prior support order to direct that the father pay the sum of $25 per week in childsupport from August 31, 2010, until October 1, 2010, and that he pay the sum of $96 per weekthereafter. The father appeals.
The party seeking modification of a support order has the burden of establishing theexistence of a substantial change in circumstances warranting the modification (see Matter of Nieves-Ford v Gordon,47 AD3d 936 [2008]). A court need not rely upon a party's own account of his or herfinances, but may impute income based upon the party's past income or demonstrated futurepotential earnings (see Brown v Brown, 239 AD2d 535 [1997]). The court may imputeincome to a party [*2]based on their employment history, futureearning capacity, educational background, or money received from friends and relatives (seeMatter of Collins v Collins, 241 AD2d 725, 727 [1997]). Here, the Family Court properlyimputed an income to the father based on his employment history, and properly granted themother's petition for an upward modification of the father's child support obligation on theground that there had been a substantial change in circumstances (see Matter of Bibicoff v Orfanakis, 48AD3d 680 [2008]).
The father's remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Hall, Lott and Roman, JJ.,concur.