Abellard v. Aime

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abellard v. Aime

18 A.D.3d 653, 795 N.Y.S.2d 652, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5354

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 16, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 653 (Abellard v. Aime) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abellard v. Aime, 18 A.D.3d 653, 795 N.Y.S.2d 652, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5354 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Richroath, J.), dated March 15, 2004, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Hickey, S.M.), dated February 18, 2004, which, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Family Court properly considered the assistance he received from his father in calculating his child support obligation (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [b] [5] [iv] [D]; Mellen v Mellen, 260 AD2d 609, 609-610 [1999]; Lapkin v Lapkin, 208 AD2d 474 [1994]) by imputing the loans the petitioner received from his father as income (see Matter of Yaroshenko v Kats, 7 AD3d 806 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J, Adams, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Richroath, J.), dated March 15, 2004, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Hickey, S.M.), dated February 18, 2004, which, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Family Court properly considered the assistance he received from his father in calculating his child support obligation (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [b] [5] [iv] [D]; Mellen v Mellen, 260 AD2d 609, 609-610 [1999]; Lapkin v Lapkin, 208 AD2d 474 [1994]) by imputing the loans the petitioner received from his father as income (see Matter of Yaroshenko v Kats, 7 AD3d 806 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J, Adams, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 653, 795 N.Y.S.2d 652, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abellard-v-aime-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack