Ann B. v. William B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ann B. v. William B.

1 A.D.3d 243, 767 N.Y.S.2d 574, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12182

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 A.D.3d 243 (Ann B. v. William B.) 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

Ann B. v. William B., 1 A.D.3d 243, 767 N.Y.S.2d 574, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12182 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about April 20, 2001, which denied respondent father’s objections to a modified order of support dated January 16, 2001, which, upon remand for recalculation, increased his [244]*244child support obligation for the parties’ 16-year-old daughter from $410.50 per month to $299.94 bi-weekly, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to respondent’s argument, the upward modification of his child support obligation sought by petitioner was not precluded by the parties’ several-year-old agreement establishing his child support obligation at a level lower than it would be if set pursuant to the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) guidelines (see Matter of Tompkins County Support Collection Unit v Chamberlin, 99 NY2d 328, 337 [2003]). Nor did any failure by petitioner to specify unanticipated circumstances warranting upward modification preclude the relief, given the presumptively deficient prevailing level of child support (see Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132 [1982]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about April 20, 2001, which denied respondent father’s objections to a modified order of support dated January 16, 2001, which, upon remand for recalculation, increased his [244]*244child support obligation for the parties’ 16-year-old daughter from $410.50 per month to $299.94 bi-weekly, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to respondent’s argument, the upward modification of his child support obligation sought by petitioner was not precluded by the parties’ several-year-old agreement establishing his child support obligation at a level lower than it would be if set pursuant to the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) guidelines (see Matter of Tompkins County Support Collection Unit v Chamberlin, 99 NY2d 328, 337 [2003]). Nor did any failure by petitioner to specify unanticipated circumstances warranting upward modification preclude the relief, given the presumptively deficient prevailing level of child support (see Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132 [1982]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.3d 243, 767 N.Y.S.2d 574, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ann-b-v-william-b-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack