Matter of Papenhausen v Sudbrink

Matter of Papenhausen v Sudbrink 2012 NY Slip Op 08747 Decided on December 19, 2012 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 19, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO
SANDRA L. SGROI
SYLVIA HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
2011-10480
(Docket No. F-9346-03/11F)

[*1]In the Matter of Jill M. Papenhausen, respondent,

v

Michael Sudbrink, appellant.




Michael Sudbrink, Hicksville, N.Y., appellant pro se.


DECISION & ORDER

In a child support proceedingpursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffmann, J.), dated October 4, 2011, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Joseph-Cherry, S.M.) dated July 18, 2011, which, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition for an upward modification of his child support obligation.

ORDERED that the order dated October 4, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The substantial increase in the father's income, plus the mother's evidence of specific increased expenses, warranted an upward modification of the father's child support obligation (see Matter of Ryan v Levine, 80 AD3d 767). The Support Magistrate properly calculated the father's child support obligation, using the income reported on his most recent tax return (see Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][b][5]; Hughes v Hughes, 79 AD3d 473, 475; Matter of Krukenkamp v Krukenkamp, 54 AD3d 345, 346). The father's remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father's objections to the Support Magistrate's order.
ENG, P.J., ANGIOLILLO, SGROI and HINDS-RADIX, JJ., concur.

ENTER: [*2]

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court