Gentry v. Littlewood
Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Family Court erred in determining that petitioner met her burden of proof on her petition for an upward modification of child support. A stipulation settling the issue of child support was incorporated but not merged in a judgment of divorce entered in December 1994. In September 1995 petitioner filed the present petition, alleging that the needs of the children were not being adequately met. At the hearing before a Hearing Examiner in 1996 petitioner failed to present any documentary or other supporting proof of specific unmet needs (see, Webb v Webb, 197 AD2d 847, 847-848). Her “generalized claims that the child [ren]’s needs have increased * * * do not warrant an upward modification of support” (Matter of Tripi v Faiello, 195 AD2d 958, lv dismissed 82 NY2d 803). “The party seeking upward modification must provide specific dollar amounts of the increase in the cost ‘related to the child [ren]’s basic necessities of food, shelter, clothing and medical and dental needs, as well as to the expenses associated with the child[ren]’s varied interests and school activities’ ” (McArthur v Bell [appeal No. 2], 201 AD2d 974, 975, lv dismissed 83 NY2d 906, lv denied 85 NY2d 809).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.