Case Name: In the Matter of Hope E. Ahrens, Respondent, v. Laurence J. Ahrens, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1986-04-24
Citations: 119 A.D.2d 942
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Hope E. Ahrens, Respondent, v Laurence J. Ahrens, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 119
Pages: 942–943

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Hope E. Ahrens, Respondent, v Laurence J. Ahrens, Appellant.

Opinion:
— Yesawich, Jr., J.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Litz, J.), entered September 12, 1984, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, and directed an upward modification of respondent's child support payments.
An April 1981 order of Family Court directed respondent to pay a total of $45 per week for the support of his children. Three years later, his former wife, the petitioner herein, instituted this proceeding for upward modification of the child support award; at this point in time the children were nine, eight and five years old. The matter proceeded to a hearing at which the proof established that respondent's gross annual earnings had increased from $11,028.30 for 1981 to $15,013.20 for 1983, and had continued at approximately the latter level during the first six months of 1984. By contrast, petitioner's income has declined from approximately $175 per week in 1981 to $109 per week in 1984; she is also receiving public assistance on an irregular basis and in varying amounts.
Family Court increased respondent's support obligation to $90 per week. While finding the liability aspect of both par ties' financial statements inflated, the court noted that respondent's capacity to pay had improved, petitioner's ability to provide economic assistance had diminished, and the children had a need for more paternal support. Respondent now appeals, claiming primarily that petitioner's evidence was insufficient to justify augmenting the earlier support order.
We affirm. Contrary to respondent's principal argument, a finding of a "substantial" increase in his income is not the sine qua non for a modification of his support obligation. Rather, petitioner had the burden of demonstrating only "that a change in circumstances has occurred warranting the increase in the best interests of the child" (Pfleger v Westfall, 90 AD2d 978; accord, Matter of Michaels v Michaels, 56 NY2d 924). The facts proven at the hearing, as articulated by Family Court in its bench decision, evince such a change and justify the modification.
Order affirmed, with costs. Main, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.