Barrett v. Barrett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barrett v. Barrett

202 A.D.2d 1066, 608 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3558

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 1066 (Barrett v. Barrett) 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

Barrett v. Barrett, 202 A.D.2d 1066, 608 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3558 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Suffolk County Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: The Hearing Examiner failed to set forth the factors it considered when it found that respondent’s pro-rata share of the basic child support obligation is unjust or inappropriate (see, Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [g]). Consideration of those factors is mandatory and nonwaivable (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [g]). We remit the matter, therefore, for findings in accordance with Family Court Act § 413 (1) (g) and a de novo hearing.

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Order of Suffolk County Family Court, Abrams, J. — Child Support.) Present— Green, J. P., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Suffolk County Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: The Hearing Examiner failed to set forth the factors it considered when it found that respondent’s pro-rata share of the basic child support obligation is unjust or inappropriate (see, Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [g]). Consideration of those factors is mandatory and nonwaivable (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [g]). We remit the matter, therefore, for findings in accordance with Family Court Act § 413 (1) (g) and a de novo hearing.

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Order of Suffolk County Family Court, Abrams, J. — Child Support.) Present— Green, J. P., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 1066, 608 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrett-v-barrett-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack