Matter of Nenninger v Tonnessen

Matter of Nenninger v Tonnessen 2014 NY Slip Op 00107 Decided on January 8, 2014 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 January 8, 2014
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
JEFFREY A. COHEN
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
2012-05603
(Docket No. F-7768-06)

[*1]In the Matter of Donald J. Nenninger, Jr., appellant,

v

Holly L. Tonnessen, respondent.




Donald J. Nenninger, Jr., Port Jefferson, N.Y., appellant pro se.


DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffmann, J.), dated April 3, 2012, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Buse, S.M.) dated December 23, 2011, which, after a fact-finding hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation and dismissed the petition.

ORDERED that the order dated April 3, 2012, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A party seeking modification of a support order has the burden of establishing the existence of a substantial change in circumstances warranting the modification (see Matter of French v Gordon, 103 AD3d 722; Matter of Suyunov v Tarashchansky, 98 AD3d 744, 745). Loss of employment may constitute a substantial change in circumstances (see Matter of Suyunov v Tarashchansky, 98 AD3d at 745; Matter of Ceballos v Castillo, 85 AD3d 1161, 1162). A party seeking a downward modification of his or her child support obligation based upon a loss of employment has the burden of demonstrating that he or she made diligent attempts to secure employment commensurate with his or her education, ability, and experience (see Matter of Suyunov v Tarashchansky, 98 AD3d at 745; Matter of Ceballos v Castillo, 85 AD3d 1161; Family Ct Act § 451[2][b][ii]).

Here, the Family Court properly denied the father's objections to the Support Magistrate's order denying his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation. The record supports the Family Court's determination that the father failed to submit competent proof of his diligent efforts to obtain employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience (see Matter of Suyunov v Tarashchansky, 98 AD3d at 745; Matter of Ceballos v Castillo, 85 AD3d 1161; Family Ct Act § 451[2][b][ii]).
SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, COHEN and HINDS-RADIX, JJ., concur.

ENTER: [*2]

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court