Austin v. Austin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Austin v. Austin

204 A.D.2d 316, 614 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4494

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

DecidedMay 2, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 316 (Austin v. Austin) 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

Austin v. Austin, 204 A.D.2d 316, 614 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4494 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), dated August 7, 1992, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Mandell, H.E.), dated June 25, 1992, which, after a hearing, inter alia, denied his application for a downward modification of his support obligation, directed him to pay one-half the cost of health insurance coverage for the children, and directed that his child support obligations be paid pursuant to an income deduction order.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

Since the appellant failed to provide this Court with a transcript of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner, we are unable to review his claims. Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed (see, Matter of Baiko v Baiko, 141 AD2d 635). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), dated August 7, 1992, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Mandell, H.E.), dated June 25, 1992, which, after a hearing, inter alia, denied his application for a downward modification of his support obligation, directed him to pay one-half the cost of health insurance coverage for the children, and directed that his child support obligations be paid pursuant to an income deduction order.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

Since the appellant failed to provide this Court with a transcript of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner, we are unable to review his claims. Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed (see, Matter of Baiko v Baiko, 141 AD2d 635). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 316, 614 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-austin-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack