Bard v. Bard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bard v. Bard

125 A.D.2d 464, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63703

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 125 A.D.2d 464 (Bard v. Bard) 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

Bard v. Bard, 125 A.D.2d 464, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63703 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

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 (Mishkin, J.), dated December 4, 1985, which increased his child support obligation from $600 per month for the parties’ two children to $800 per month.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this proceeding the petitioner is attempting to obtain adequate support for the parties’ children. Therefore, it is not necessary to demonstrate an unforeseen change in circumstances to justify an increase (see, Matter of Tibaldi v Otten, 111 AD2d 859). The petitioner must establish that a change in [465]*465circumstances has occurred warranting the modification in the best interest of the children (see, Stevenson v Stevenson, 98 AD2d 718). A review of the record clearly indicates that a factual basis for the upward modification has been established. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Spatt, 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 (Mishkin, J.), dated December 4, 1985, which increased his child support obligation from $600 per month for the parties’ two children to $800 per month.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this proceeding the petitioner is attempting to obtain adequate support for the parties’ children. Therefore, it is not necessary to demonstrate an unforeseen change in circumstances to justify an increase (see, Matter of Tibaldi v Otten, 111 AD2d 859). The petitioner must establish that a change in [465]*465circumstances has occurred warranting the modification in the best interest of the children (see, Stevenson v Stevenson, 98 AD2d 718). A review of the record clearly indicates that a factual basis for the upward modification has been established. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.2d 464, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bard-v-bard-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack