Barnes v. Barnes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barnes v. Barnes

186 A.D.2d 1042, 590 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11632

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 7, 1992·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly affirmed the order of the Hearing Examiner that modified the judgment of divorce by increasing the amount of child support to be paid by respondent. Contrary to respondent’s contention, the Hearing Examiner and the court properly applied the standards set forth in Matter of Brescia v Fitts (56 NY2d 132) rather than in Matter of Boden v Boden (42 NY2d 210). Petitioner was not seeking to readjust the respective obligations of the parents to support the children but was asserting the children’s right to receive adequate support. Here, the evidence shows that the combination of petitioner’s "own income and the payments [1043]*1043contributed by respondent does not adequately meet the children’s needs” (Matter of Brescia v Fitts, supra, at 140). (Appeal from Order of Oneida County Family Court, Flemma, J.— Child Support.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Boehm and Doerr, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly affirmed the order of the Hearing Examiner that modified the judgment of divorce by increasing the amount of child support to be paid by respondent. Contrary to respondent’s contention, the Hearing Examiner and the court properly applied the standards set forth in Matter of Brescia v Fitts (56 NY2d 132) rather than in Matter of Boden v Boden (42 NY2d 210). Petitioner was not seeking to readjust the respective obligations of the parents to support the children but was asserting the children’s right to receive adequate support. Here, the evidence shows that the combination of petitioner’s "own income and the payments [1043]*1043contributed by respondent does not adequately meet the children’s needs” (Matter of Brescia v Fitts, supra, at 140). (Appeal from Order of Oneida County Family Court, Flemma, J.— Child Support.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Boehm and Doerr, JJ.

Barnes v. Barnes, 186 A.D.2d 1042, 590 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11632 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

186 A.D.2d 1042 (Barnes v. Barnes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related