New York Divorce Lawyer J Douglas Barics Matrimonial Attorney

Law Office of

J. Douglas Barics

New York Divorce and Family Law

NY Divorce Attorney J Douglas Barics Family Law Lawyer

356 Veterans Memorial Highway. Suite 3, Commack, NY 11725  Phone: (631) 864-2600  Email: lawyer@jdbar.com



In the Matter of Sean Heverin, Appellant,
v.
Lisa Sackel, Also Known as Lisa Heverin, Respondent


SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION,
SECOND DEPARTMENT


April 8, 1997, Submitted
May 12, 1997, Decided


Heverin v. Heverin

239 A.D.2d 418; 657 N.Y.S.2d 441


COUNSEL:


Robert J. Hilpert, Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y., for appellant.


Katz & Klein, Esqs., White Plains, N.Y. (Gerald M. Klein of counsel), for respondent.


JUDGES: Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.


OPINION


 Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.


 As a party seeking a downward modification of child support, the father had the burden of establishing an unanticipated and unreasonable change of circumstance (see, Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210). Although a loss of employment may constitute such an unanticipated change of circumstance, a downward modification may be denied where the moving party has not made a good faith effort to obtain employment commensurate with his or her qualifications and experience (see, Matter of Yepes v Fichera, 230 AD2d 803, Matter of Jones v Marolla, 105 AD2d 944; Matter of Davis v Davis, 197 AD2d 622). Although it is undisputed that the father lost his job as an engineer through no fault of his own, he failed to present any evidence that he used his best efforts to obtain a new position commensurate with his education and skills. Accordingly, the record supports the determination of the Family Court that the father did not meet the necessary burden so as to entitle him to a downward modification of child support.


 Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.






The case of Heverin v. Heverin is provided as part of a free educational service by J. Douglas Barics, attorney at law, for reference only. Cases such as Heverin may be overruled by subsequent decisions, different judicial departments may have different controlling case law, and the level of the court deciding each case will determine whether it is controlling law or not. Heverin v. Heverin is presented here to help illustrate how the law works in general, but for specific legal matters, an attorney should be consulted.


If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Mr. Barics at lawyer@jdbar.com or (631) 864-2600. For more articles and information, please visit www.jdbar.com


[Home] [Articles] [Cases] [Statutes] [Forms] [J. Douglas Barics] [Current Rates] [Contact]