Afriye-Fullwood v. Opetubo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Afriye-Fullwood v. Opetubo

63 A.D.3d 1154, 881 N.Y.S.2d 319

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

DecidedJune 30, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 1154 (Afriye-Fullwood v. Opetubo) 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

Afriye-Fullwood v. Opetubo, 63 A.D.3d 1154, 881 N.Y.S.2d 319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Elkins, J.), dated March 13, 2008, which denied his objections to two orders of the same court (Shamahs, S.M.), dated November 13, 2007, and November 21, 2007, respectively, which, after a hearing, granted the mother’s petition for reimbursement of certain college expenses and dismissed his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order dated March 13, 2008, is affirmed, with costs.

[1155]*1155Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court properly denied his objections. The father failed to establish grounds for downward modification of his child support obligations, as set forth in a stipulation of settlement that was incorporated but not merged in the parties’ judgment of divorce (see Matter of Connolly v Connolly, 39 AD3d 643 [2007]; Matter of Westenberger v Westenberger, 23 AD3d 571 [2005]), and failed to establish that he was denied proper credits against arrears (see Colucci v Colucci, 54 AD3d 710 [2008]; Matter of Gleason v Gleason, 247 AD2d 384 [1998]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.E, Angiolillo, Chambers and Lott, 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 father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Elkins, J.), dated March 13, 2008, which denied his objections to two orders of the same court (Shamahs, S.M.), dated November 13, 2007, and November 21, 2007, respectively, which, after a hearing, granted the mother’s petition for reimbursement of certain college expenses and dismissed his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order dated March 13, 2008, is affirmed, with costs.

[1155]*1155Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court properly denied his objections. The father failed to establish grounds for downward modification of his child support obligations, as set forth in a stipulation of settlement that was incorporated but not merged in the parties’ judgment of divorce (see Matter of Connolly v Connolly, 39 AD3d 643 [2007]; Matter of Westenberger v Westenberger, 23 AD3d 571 [2005]), and failed to establish that he was denied proper credits against arrears (see Colucci v Colucci, 54 AD3d 710 [2008]; Matter of Gleason v Gleason, 247 AD2d 384 [1998]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.E, Angiolillo, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 1154, 881 N.Y.S.2d 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/afriye-fullwood-v-opetubo-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack