Barker v. Dorman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barker v. Dorman

292 A.D.2d 806, 738 N.Y.S.2d 644, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2614

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 2002·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal from an order of Family Court, Jefferson County (Hunt, J.), entered March 30, 2001, which denied in part petitioner’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner contends that Family Court erred in failing to consider the parties’ arrears stipulation before modifying respondent’s child support obligation. Because petitioner did not raise that contention in her objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order, it is not preserved for our review (see, Matter of Hamdy v Hamdy, 203 AD2d 959). The Hearing Examiner was in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the parties (see, Matter of Emery v Bond, 269 AD2d 832), and we conclude that the Hearing Examiner properly determined [807] that respondent is entitled to a reduction in his child support obligation (see, Cordell v Cordell, 267 AD2d 1049, 1050). Present — Green, J.P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of Family Court, Jefferson County (Hunt, J.), entered March 30, 2001, which denied in part petitioner’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner contends that Family Court erred in failing to consider the parties’ arrears stipulation before modifying respondent’s child support obligation. Because petitioner did not raise that contention in her objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order, it is not preserved for our review (see, Matter of Hamdy v Hamdy, 203 AD2d 959). The Hearing Examiner was in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the parties (see, Matter of Emery v Bond, 269 AD2d 832), and we conclude that the Hearing Examiner properly determined [807] that respondent is entitled to a reduction in his child support obligation (see, Cordell v Cordell, 267 AD2d 1049, 1050). Present — Green, J.P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

Barker v. Dorman, 292 A.D.2d 806, 738 N.Y.S.2d 644, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2614 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

292 A.D.2d 806 (Barker v. Dorman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related