The parties had previously finalized a divorce judgment incorporating a written settlement agreement. 

Under that agreement, the non custodial parent was obligated to pay $2,000 per month in child support.

The petitioner later alleged reduced income and argued that the original payments were intended as shared living expenses during an alleged post divorce cohabitation period.

However, the custodial parent had maintained primary physical custody at all times, and the child’s educational and daily living expenses remained consistent.

The dispute required careful review of the Child Support Standards Act and the procedural requirements for modification in New York.

The court was required to evaluate several contested questions:

• Whether the alleged income reduction was substantial, involuntary, and well documented.
• Whether a legally recognizable domestic partnership existed after the divorce.
• Whether the agreed payments constituted child support or informal living expense contributions.
• Whether a reduction would adversely affect the child’s welfare.

The defense strategy focused on documentary evidence, financial records, and the statutory framework governing support modification.

The petitioner asserted that the parties maintained a de facto marital relationship after the divorce, and that the monthly payments were therefore not strictly child support.

The defense demonstrated that any brief cohabitation was temporary and related to reconciliation efforts. 

Utility records, lease documentation, and financial separation evidence established that the parties maintained independent households.

New York courts distinguish between temporary reconciliation attempts and legally cognizable domestic partnerships. The evidence showed no shared finances, no joint tax filings, and no intent to resume a marital relationship.

The petitioner claimed economic hardship, but the court requires credible documentation of involuntary and substantial income loss.

The defense established the following:

• The income decline was temporary and partially self created.
• The petitioner retained earning capacity consistent with prior employment.
• The child’s educational and living expenses had not decreased.
• A reduction would undermine the stability of the custodial household.

Under New York law, child support determinations prioritize the child’s best interests over parental convenience. 

The family law attorney NYC emphasized that modification cannot be granted based on unsupported assertions or strategic underemployment.

The court held that the existing support order remained appropriate under the Child Support Standards Act.

The judge specifically noted that the payments were clearly designated as child support in the written agreement, and that no persuasive evidence supported the claim that they were informal living expenses.