MacIntyre v. Wing

169 A.D.3d 1026

92 N.Y.S.3d 907 (Mem)

Kim MACINTYRE, Respondent,

v.Robert WING, Appellant.

2016–06494

Index No. 50255/10

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—October 12, 2018

February 27, 2019

Robert Wing, Staten Island, NY, appellant pro se.

Behrins Law Firm, PLLC, Staten Island, N.Y. (Jonathan B. Behrins of counsel), for respondent.

ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J. WILLIAM F. MASTRO JOSEPH J. MALTESE BETSY BARROS, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a matrimonial action, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Barbara Irolla Panepinto, J.), dated May 11, 2016. The order denied the defendant's motion for a downward modification of his child support obligations.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff and the defendant, who have one child in common, were divorced by a judgment dated July 8, 2015. The judgment, inter alia, awarded the plaintiff child support in the sum of $ 622.30 bi-weekly. In March 2016, the defendant moved, in effect, for a downward modification of his child support obligation. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and the defendant appeals.

We agree with the Supreme Court's denial of the motion, as the defendant failed to establish the existence of a substantial change in circumstances warranting a downward modification of his child support obligation (see Family Ct. Act § 451[3][a] ; Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][9][b][2][i] ; Abizadeh v. Abizadeh, 159 A.D.3d 857, 70 N.Y.S.3d 54 ; Matter of Fantau v. Fantau, 134 A.D.3d 1109, 1110, 21 N.Y.S.3d 725 ; Raab v. Raab, 129 A.D.3d 1050, 1051, 11 N.Y.S.3d 678 ). The defendant's contention that the plaintiff's attorneys engaged in misconduct is unsupported by the record.

SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.