MANCUSO, CARLA M. v. MANCUSO, MICHAEL D. ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    1283
    CA 15-00863
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.
    CARLA M. MANCUSO, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
    V                             MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    MICHAEL D. MANCUSO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    DAVIDSON FINK LLP, ROCHESTER (DONALD A. WHITE OF COUNSEL), FOR
    DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    DENTINO, CAMMARATA & FAZIO, LLC, ROCHESTER (MICHAEL PAUL OF COUNSEL),
    FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Elma A.
    Bellini, J.), entered December 22, 2014. The order, insofar as
    appealed from, granted that part of plaintiff’s motion seeking an
    upward modification of child support.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is
    unanimously reversed on the law without costs and that part of the
    motion seeking an upward modification of child support is denied.
    Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order that, insofar as
    appealed from, granted that part of plaintiff’s motion for an upward
    modification of child support. We agree with defendant that Supreme
    Court erred in concluding that it was required to recalculate child
    support upon the termination of defendant’s maintenance obligation and
    in granting that part of plaintiff’s motion on that ground. The
    judgment of divorce reflected an award of child support to plaintiff
    in which defendant’s maintenance payments had been deducted from his
    income in calculating child support, but there was no provision in the
    judgment for an adjustment to child support upon the termination of
    maintenance, as required by Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (b) (5)
    (vii) (C) (see Antinora v Antinora, 125 AD3d 1336, 1338; Lazar v
    Lazar, 124 AD3d 1242, 1244-1245). Neither party took an appeal from
    the judgment of divorce, however, and we conclude that the court erred
    in essentially correcting the error upon plaintiff’s subsequent
    request for a modification of child support (see generally Matter of
    Baker v Baker, 291 AD2d 751, 752-753). Rather, plaintiff was required
    to show a substantial change in circumstances warranting an upward
    modification of child support (see § 236 [B] [9] [b] [2] [i]), and we
    conclude that she failed to make that showing.
    “Among the factors to be considered in determining whether there
    has been a change in circumstances warranting an upward modification
    -2-                          1283
    CA 15-00863
    of support are the increased needs of the children, the increased cost
    of living insofar as it results in greater expenses for the children,
    a loss of income or assets by a parent or a substantial improvement in
    the financial condition of a parent, and the current and prior
    lifestyles of the children” (Matter of DiGiorgi v Buda, 26 AD3d 434,
    434 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Shedd v Shedd, 277 AD2d
    917, 917-918, lv dismissed 96 NY2d 754). “ ‘While an increase in the
    noncustodial parent’s income is a factor which may be considered in
    deciding whether to grant an upward modification of child support,
    this factor alone is not determinative’ ” (DiGiorgi, 26 AD3d at 434).
    Here, the record establishes that defendant’s income had
    decreased since the judgment was entered, and therefore the
    termination of his maintenance obligation would result in only a small
    increase in his income. Although plaintiff contends that the
    termination of maintenance resulted in a substantial change in her
    income, she failed to show that she would be unable to replace that
    lost income through employment. Indeed, in recalculating defendant’s
    child support obligation, the court imputed income to plaintiff in the
    amount she had been receiving in maintenance (see Belkhir v Amrane-
    Belkhir, 118 AD3d 1396, 1397-1398; Irene v Irene [appeal No. 2], 41
    AD3d 1179, 1180-1181). Plaintiff failed to demonstrate any other
    factors in support of an upward modification in child support inasmuch
    as she did not introduce any evidence of increased needs of the
    children, a loss of assets, or a change in the current and prior
    lifestyles of the children (see Matter of Rosenthal v Buck, 281 AD2d
    909, 909-910; Matter of Faery v Piedmont, 181 AD2d 1014, 1014).
    Entered:   December 23, 2015                    Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CA 15-00863

Filed Date: 12/23/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2024