| Matter of Anderson v Anderson |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01249 [92 AD3d 779] |
| February 14, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Elizabeth C. Anderson,Respondent, v Adolph P. Anderson, Appellant. Dutchess County Department of SocialServices, Nonparty Respondent. |
—[*1] James Fedorchak, County Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Thomas P. Delpizzo of counsel),for nonparty respondent.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals froman order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Sammarco, J.), dated March 25, 2011, whichdenied his objections to an order of the same court (Kaufman, S.M.), entered September 1, 2010,which, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition for an upward modification of his childsupport obligation set forth in a child support order dated February 5, 2008, which had beenentered upon his consent.
Ordered that the order dated March 25, 2011, is affirmed, with costs.
The parties originally executed a separation agreement that was incorporated, but notmerged, into a judgment of divorce dated August 24, 2006. Upon a petition by the mother, theFamily Court conducted a hearing, after which the support obligations as set forth in theseparation agreement were modified, upon the consent of the parties, in an order of the FamilyCourt dated February 5, 2008. In May 2010 the mother commenced the instant proceeding tomodify the father's child support obligations as set forth in the order dated February 5, 2008.
Where a party seeks to modify a child support order entered on consent, he or she "has theburden of showing that there has been a substantial change in circumstances" (Matter of Ceballos v Castillo, 85 AD3d1161, 1162 [2011]; see Matter ofJewett v Monfoletto, 72 AD3d 688, 688-689 [2010]; Weiss v Weiss, 294 AD2d566, 567 [2002]). Here, in light of the testimony and documentary evidence demonstrating theincreased cost of clothing, food, and heating oil, as well as the increased expenses related to theson's special education needs and the children's involvement in activities such as music lessons,karate lessons, soccer, and girl scouts, the mother demonstrated a substantial change incircumstances sufficient to warrant the modification of the father's child support obligation(see Matter of Jewett v Monfoletto, 72 AD3d at 688-689; Matter of Jones vJones, 239 AD2d 419, 420 [1997]; Matter of Staffanell v Staffanell, 220 AD2d 751,751 [1995]; Zucker v Zucker, 187 AD2d 507, 509 [1992]).[*2]
The father's remaining contentions are either withoutmerit or improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Matter of Jewett v Monfoletto,72 AD3d at 689; Matter of Iadanza vBoeger, 58 AD3d 733, 734 [2009]). Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Belen and Roman, JJ.,concur.