Friedman v. Friedman

Family Law

New York Law Journal


Justice Jeffrey Sunshine

Husband moved for a downward modification of a prior decision awarding wife child support payments. Wife cross-moved seeking a money judgment against husband for his failure to comply with that decision. At the time of trial, husband was not regularly employed, but the court imputed $55,950, his gross income on his 2009 tax return, and ordered $1,445.48 paid as monthly child support, including retroactive arrears. Husband alleged he was negotiating with a potential new employer, TAXPRO, claiming his current annual income was $36,400. Yet, the court noted husband waited seven months before informing the court of his new employment. It found he failed to show a substantial change in circumstances from the time the child support decision was issued May 16, 2012, crediting wife's allegations that husband took specific measures to decrease his income to reduce or avoid his child support obligations. The court stated husband's application was made a mere two months after the court issued its decision on child support and only seven months after he became employed. Thus, it ruled a downward modification was unwarranted, denying husband's application.

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202585797964

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.