Burzynski v. Vallese

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burzynski v. Vallese

213 A.D.2d 1047, 625 N.Y.S.2d 960

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1995

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 1047 (Burzynski v. Vallese) 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

Burzynski v. Vallese, 213 A.D.2d 1047, 625 N.Y.S.2d 960 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Because he supports two stepchildren and two children from his subsequent marriage, respondent sought a variance from the Child Support Standards Act guidelines. Family Court properly denied his petition. Having stipulated to the sufficiency of the financial information submitted to the Hearing Examiner, respondent cannot now contend that the Hearing Examiner

[1048]*1048improperly failed to consider debts that respondent did not list. Inasmuch as respondent did not contest the reasonableness of the amounts of attorney’s fees requested by petitioner, the court properly exercised its discretion in awarding petitioner attorney’s fees based upon her attorney’s affidavits and the financial circumstances of the parties as submitted by them to the Hearing Examiner (cf., Matter of Tripi v Faiello, 195 AD2d 958, 958-959, lv dismissed 82 NY2d 803; Cooper v Cooper, 179 AD2d 1035). (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, O’Donnell, J.—Child Support.) Present—Green, J. P., Wesley, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Because he supports two stepchildren and two children from his subsequent marriage, respondent sought a variance from the Child Support Standards Act guidelines. Family Court properly denied his petition. Having stipulated to the sufficiency of the financial information submitted to the Hearing Examiner, respondent cannot now contend that the Hearing Examiner

[1048]*1048improperly failed to consider debts that respondent did not list. Inasmuch as respondent did not contest the reasonableness of the amounts of attorney’s fees requested by petitioner, the court properly exercised its discretion in awarding petitioner attorney’s fees based upon her attorney’s affidavits and the financial circumstances of the parties as submitted by them to the Hearing Examiner (cf., Matter of Tripi v Faiello, 195 AD2d 958, 958-959, lv dismissed 82 NY2d 803; Cooper v Cooper, 179 AD2d 1035). (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, O’Donnell, J.—Child Support.) Present—Green, J. P., Wesley, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 1047, 625 N.Y.S.2d 960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burzynski-v-vallese-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack