Matter of Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 2016 NY Slip Op 8869 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · Go Syfert
Search
Matter of Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 2016 NY Slip Op 8869 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Michael H. v. Kristen L.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
The mother never moved for leave to reargue or renew with respect to the order appealed from on the ground that the Family Court overlooked the additional affidavit or that there was new evidence that would have changed its determination ( see CPLR 2221[a], [d], [e]; see generally Matter of Rosenberg v Rosenberg , 145 AD3d 1015 ), and a RADI form cannot be used by a party to unilaterally expand a record on appeal ( see Matter of Bosse v Simpson , 173 AD3d 856 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Robert Rosenberg, Appellant,
v.
Virginia Rosenberg, Respondent
2016-01585.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 28, 2016.
2016 NY Slip Op 8869
Balkin, Dickerson, Hinds-Radix, Nelson.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by the father from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Thomas Rademaker, J.), dated December 14, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, in effect, upon re-argument, adhered to its original determination in a prior order denying the father’s objections to an order of that court (Elizabeth A. Bloom, S.M.), dated June 30, 2015, which, without a hearing, dismissed his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order dated December 14, 2015, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In January 2015, the father filed a petition seeking a downward modification of his child support obligation. In an order dated June 30, 2015, the Family Court dismissed the petition. The father filed objections to the order dismissing his petition, and in an order dated August 20, 2015, the Family Court denied his objections. Thereafter, the father moved for leave to reargue his objections. In an order dated December 14, 2015, the Family Court, in effect, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination denying the father’s objections.

“A party seeking to modify a child support award has the burden of establishing the existence of a substantial change in circumstances, measured by comparing the payor’s financial situation at the time of the application for downward modification with the payor’s financial situation when the award that the payor seeks to modify was made” (Matter of Signorile v Kaminski, 116 AD3d 961, 962 [2014]). Here, the father failed to establish a change in his financial situation between the time[*1016] of the original child support award and the time of his application for a downward modification (see Matter of Guevara v Villatoro, 134 AD3d 1115 [2015]; Gottlieb v Gottlieb, 119 AD3d 644, 645 [2014]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly, in effect, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination denying the father’s objections to the order dated June 30, 2015, dismissing his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Balkin, J.P., Dickerson, Hinds-Radix and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.