The burden of demonstrating the alleged substantial change in circumstances is on the party seeking relief.  In re Lasota
 The burden of proving fraud or concealment is on the party asserting it, and that burden is more onerous when a party seeks to vacate or modify a property settlement incorporated in a divorce decree, all presumptions being in favor of the validity of the settlement; fraud may consist in the concealment of what is true as in the assertion of what is false,  and the concealment must be in the assertion of what is false, and the concealment must be shown to have been done with the intention to deceive under circumstances creating an opportunity and a duty to speak.  Dendrinos v. Dendrions
 The burden of proof is upon the party seeking relief to show that material changes in circumstances exist as would justify modification.  Elizer v. Elizer
 The burden of demonstrating circumstances warranting modification is on the party seeking the modification.  Graham v. Graham
 
The burden of proof is on the petitioner in an action to increase support payments to prove the increased needs to support the child, and also to prove that the defendant has the ability to pay the increased amount needed.  Grinton v. Grinton
 In a proceeding to modify child support the burden of proof is on the petitioner to clearly establish the increased need and corresponding increased ability to pay and the findings, and order of the trial court, on matters of this nature, will not be reversed unless contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.  Kelleher v. Kelleher
 Where the plaintiff’s petition seeking modification of a divorce decree’s property settlement was based upon the alleged fraud of the respondents, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to establish this charge by clear and convincing evidence.  Wilson v. Wilson
 Although custody provisions can be modified, the party seeking to modify such provisions has the burden of proving altered conditions.  Herth v. Herth
 The burden of proof is upon the applicant to show such material changes in circumstances as would justify modification, and where no evidence of a change in the financial condition of the parties is offered in evidence, the petition must be denied.  Patterson v. Patterson

See Also:  Divorce Lawyers New York