Court Opinion

ID: 9945968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 20:07:25.349681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:24:11.127681
License: Public Domain

Matter of Camarda v Charlot (2024 NY Slip Op 01007)

Matter of Camarda v Charlot

2024 NY Slip Op 01007

Decided on February 28, 2024

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 28, 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P.
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
HELEN VOUTSINAS
LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ.

2023-05200
 (Docket No. F-8229-09)

[*1]In the Matter of Joseph Camarda, appellant,
vMarie L. Charlot, respondent.

Joseph Camarda, Belle Terre, NY, appellant pro se.

DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Alfred C. Graf, J.), dated April 24, 2023. The order denied the father's objections to an order of the same court (Darlene Jorif-Mangane, S.M.) dated March 15, 2023, which, after a hearing, dismissed his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.
ORDERED that the order dated April 24, 2023, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court properly denied the father's objections to an order of a Support Magistrate, which, after a hearing, dismissed his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation. Contrary to the father's contention, he failed to demonstrate the existence of a substantial change in circumstances or that there had been an involuntary reduction in his income by 15% or more since his child support obligation was last modified (see Family Ct Act § 451[3]; Matter of Clarke v Clarke, 193 AD3d 929). Further, the Family Court has no discretion to reduce or cancel arrears which accrue prior to an application for a downward modification of a child support obligation (see Matter of Gardner v Maddine, 112 AD3d 926, 927).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.
IANNACCI, J.P., MALTESE, VOUTSINAS and VENTURA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Acting Clerk of the Court