Subject: Westlaw Email Resent-Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 17:33:13 -0500 Resent-From: Geoffrey Fox Resent-To: p_gcf@npac.syr.edu Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:23:41 -0600 From: Westlaw@westgroup.com Reply-To: wl-email@westgroup.com To: gcf@npac.syr.edu © 2000 West Group. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a U.S. government officer or employee as part of that person’s official duties. All rights reserved. Use of the Westlaw data delivered to your e-mail address is governed by the Westlaw Subscriber Agreement or such other agreement as may govern your use of Westlaw data . Go to Westlaw on the Web: http://www.westlaw.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- Copr. (C) West 2000 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 641 N.Y.S.2d 738 (Cite as: 227 A.D.2d 703, 641 N.Y.S.2d 738) In the Matter of Cathy K. ROBINSON, Appellant, v. William G. ROBINSON, Respondent. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. May 2, 1996. Mother petitioned for increase in child support award. The Family Court, Cortland County, Mullen, J., dismissed application and appeal was taken. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Casey, J., held that mother had failed to provide sufficient evidence of changed condition to warrant modification of award. Affirmed. DIVORCE k309.5(3) 134k309.5(3) Mother had failed to demonstrate necessary change in circumstances to justify upward modification of father's child support obligations in children's best interest; mother's conclusory claim of increased expenses, unsupported by other evidence in record, was insufficient, and hearing officer had found only a small increase in father's wages. **739 Di Caprio & Di Caprio (Anthony P. Di Caprio, of counsel), Syracuse, for appellant. Pomeroy, Armstrong, Baranello & Casullo LLP (James J. Baranello, of counsel), Cortland, for respondent. Before MIKOLL, J.P., and MERCURE, WHITE, CASEY and SPAIN, JJ. CASEY, Justice. Appeal *704 from an order of the Family Court of Cortland County (Mullen, J.), entered May 12, 1995, which, inter alia, dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, to modify respondent's child support obligation. The parties married in 1984 and have two children. In November 1991 the parties entered into a separation agreement which provided that respondent would pay petitioner child support of $75 per child per week until the children were emancipated. The agreement further provided that "[e]ither party may apply to the Family Court * * * for a modification of [the support] provision in the same manner and upon the same standard as required for the modification of a support order of that court " (emphasis supplied). This agreement was incorporated but not merged into the subsequent judgment of divorce. Petitioner thereafter sought an upward modification of child support based on the children's increased living expenses and respondent's alleged substantially increased income. After a hearing, the Hearing Examiner determined that petitioner had not proved a change of circumstances entitling her to a modification of child support and dismissed the application. Petitioner objected and Family Court decided that the Hearing Examiner had applied the wrong standard for modification. Nonetheless, Family Court also dismissed the application, determining that petitioner had failed to meet her burden of showing entitlement to a modification of child support. By expressly providing in the separation agreement for modification of the support provision "in the same manner and upon the same standard as required for the modification of a support order", the parties effectively stipulated to the "substantial change in circumstances" standard usually applied to a request to modify the child support provision of a court order (see, Matter of DeAngelo v. Doherty, 208 A.D.2d 1012, 1014, 617 N.Y.S.2d 207). In any event, to the extent that petitioner is asserting the right of her children to adequate support, it is sufficient that a change in circumstances has occurred warranting the increase in the best interests of the children, despite the existence of a separation agreement (see, Matter of Brescia v. Fitts, 56 N.Y.2d 132, 138-140, 451 N.Y.S.2d 68, 436 N.E.2d 518). Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that petitioner failed to demonstrate the necessary change in circumstances to justify the modification in the children's best interests. Petitioner's conclusory claim of increased expenses, unsupported by other evidence in the record, is insufficient *705 (see, Matter of Slack v. Slack, 215 A.D.2d 798, 799, 625 N.Y.S.2d 742). The record supports the Hearing Officer's finding of only a small increase in respondent's wages, which is insufficient to warrant modification (see, Matter of Bagnoli v. Bagnoli, 214 A.D.2d 829, 625 N.Y.S.2d 676). The order of Family Court should be affirmed. ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs. MIKOLL, J.P., MERCURE, WHITE and SPAIN, JJ., concur. END OF DOCUMENT ------ =NextPart7G4eY5FXIcs3Gw568w9O Content-Type: text/plain Westlaw Email Delivery Summary Report For RICHARD KRAM 2152083 Wednesday, January 05, 2000 14:23:31 (Central) Request#: 1 Created Date/Time: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 14:23:00 (Central) Client Id: FOX Database: NY-CS Citation: 641 N.Y.S.2d 738 Number of Lines Delivered: 78 Number of Lines Charged: 0 Number of Documents Delivered: 1 Number of Documents Charged: 0 ------ =NextPart7G4eY5FXIcs3Gw568w9O--