From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Loviglio v. Loviglio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 10, 2002
295 A.D.2d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-01503, 2001-01504

Submitted May 16, 2002.

June 10, 2002.

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Eisman, J), entered January 9, 2001, which denied her objections to an order of the same court (Watson, H.E.), dated June 28, 2000, which, after a hearing, denied her petition for an upward modification of child support, and (2) an order of the same court, entered January 11, 2001, which denied her objections to an order of the same court (Watson, H.E.), dated October 27, 2000, which granted the father's application for an award of an attorney's fee.

Moshell Moshell, Garden City, N.Y. (Leslie J. Altman of counsel), for appellant.

Barrocas Rieger, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Lloyd C. Rosen of counsel), for respondent.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The mother failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances justified an upward modification of the child support agreed to by the parties pursuant to their stipulation of settlement which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce. Additionally, she failed to show that the child's needs were not being adequately met, and/or that the agreement was unfair or inequitable when entered into (see Merl v. Merl, 67 N.Y.2d 359, 362; Matter of Brescia v. Fitts, 56 N.Y.2d 132, 138; Matter of Boden v. Boden, 42 N.Y.2d 210, 213; Amodemo v. Amodemo, 205 A.D.2d 484; see also Reiff v. Reiff, 240 A.D.2d 646; cf. Matter of Panic v. Hert, 200 A.D.2d 748). Thus, the Family Court properly denied her application for this relief.

The Hearing Examiner properly determined that the mother's conduct was frivolous and awarded the father an attorney's fee in the sum of $5,769.35 (see 22 NYCRR 130-1).

FLORIO, J.P., SMITH, FRIEDMANN and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Loviglio v. Loviglio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 10, 2002
295 A.D.2d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

In the Matter of Loviglio v. Loviglio

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF MAUREEN LOVIGLIO, appellant, v. JAMES LOVIGLIO, respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 10, 2002

Citations

295 A.D.2d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
743 N.Y.S.2d 721

Citing Cases

Sherman v. Sherman

The Supreme Court also properly determined that the defendant's increased costs resulting from a move to a…

Mason v. Papol

Contrary to the father's contention on appeal, the evidence adduced at the hearing provided a sufficient…