From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Ciostek v. Ciostek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 7, 1992
186 A.D.2d 1087 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

October 7, 1992

Appeal from the Erie County Family Court, Manz, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Boomer, Balio, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The parties' judgment of divorce, which was entered on June 6, 1990, directed petitioner Andrzej Ciostek to pay $75 per week for the support of his three children. In October 1990, respondent obtained an order directing her former husband to pay $750 in child support arrears. A few weeks later, she filed another petition for support arrears. During the pendency of that proceeding, petitioner filed a petition for a downward modification of child support upon the ground that he was not employed full-time and was attending school to become an airplane technician. The Family Court Hearing Examiner granted his petition for modification and directed him to pay $25 per week for the support of the children.

Family Court erred in granting the petition as petitioner failed to demonstrate a substantial change of circumstances sufficient to warrant a downward modification of child support. At the time of the divorce, he was earning $200 per week. Petitioner testified that, since the divorce, he was terminated from two jobs; that he decided to relocate from the Buffalo area to Utica, N.Y. to pursue a one-year full-time program of training to become an airplane technician; and that while attending school, he was employed part-time and earning $60 per week. He did not submit the required affidavit of his financial circumstances (see, 22 NYCRR 205.34, 205.35 [c]), and no evidence was presented at the hearing regarding his employment skills or his earning capacity at the time he decided to attend school.

A parent responsible for the support of children may, where necessary, forego employment and pursue further education that will enhance his earning capacity and thereby ultimately benefit the children (Matter of Robesena W. v George B.D., 145 A.D.2d 426). A parent may not, however, unilaterally forego employment in an attempt to evade support responsibilities (Ferlo v Ferlo, 152 A.D.2d 980). Petitioner failed to present evidence that would enable the court to assess the necessity or bona fides of his decision to pursue further education. His conclusory statement that he "expected" to earn two or three times his previous earnings upon graduation was insufficient to prove that this training program ultimately would benefit the children.


Summaries of

Matter of Ciostek v. Ciostek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 7, 1992
186 A.D.2d 1087 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Matter of Ciostek v. Ciostek

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ANDRZEJ CIOSTEK, Respondent, v. MIROSLAWA CIOSTEK…

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

Date published: Oct 7, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 1087 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
588 N.Y.S.2d 690

Citing Cases

Commonwealth Dept. of Social Services v. Ewing

, In re Marriage of Seanor, 876 P.2d 44 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 891 P.2d 1002…

Zepperi v. Madera

Inasmuch as respondent does not dispute that he failed to pay as required by the support order, which…