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

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 806 (Barker v. Dorman) 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

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

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]*807that 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]*807that 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 806, 738 N.Y.S.2d 644, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barker-v-dorman-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack