| Matter of Corbisiero v Corbisiero |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 08079 [112 AD3d 625] |
| December 4, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Richard A. Corbisiero,Appellant, v Loretta A. Corbisiero, Respondent. |
—[*1] Loretta A. Corbisiero, Islip Terrace, N.Y., respondent pro se.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the fatherappeals (1), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court,Suffolk County (Fields, S.M.), dated October 3, 2012, as, after a hearing, denied thosebranches of his petition which were for a downward modification of his weekly childsupport obligation and his obligation to pay certain college expenses of the parties'children, and (2) an order of the same court (Hoffmann, J.) dated December 10, 2012,which denied his objections to so much of the order dated October 3, 2012, as deniedthose branches of his petition which were for a downward modification of his weeklychild support obligation and his obligation to pay certain college expenses of the parties'children.
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated October 3, 2012, is dismissed, as theportions of that order appealed from were superseded by the order dated December 10,2012; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated December 10, 2012, is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.
A party seeking to modify the support provisions contained in a stipulation ofsettlement incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce, where, as here, thestipulation was executed prior to the effective date of the 2010 amendments to FamilyCourt Act § 451, has the burden of establishing a substantial, unanticipated, andunreasonable change in circumstances resulting in a concomitant need (seeFamily Court Act § 451 [2] [a]; L 2010, ch 182, § 13; Merl v Merl,67 NY2d 359 [1986]; Matter ofNeuhauser v Eisenberger, 77 AD3d 951 [2010]; Matter of Schlakman vSchlakman, 66 AD3d 786, 787 [2009]; Matter of Ripa v Ripa, 61 AD3d 766 [2009]; Matter of Kerner v Kerner, 46AD3d 683 [2007]). Here, the father failed to establish that an increase in themother's income was an unanticipated change in circumstances sufficient to warrant adownward modification of his weekly child support obligation and his obligation to paycertain college expenses of the parties' children.[*2]
Accordingly, the Family Court correctly deniedthe father's objections to so much of the Support Magistrate's order as denied thosebranches of his petition which were for a downward modification of those obligations.Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Sgroi, JJ., concur.