Canazon v. Cooper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Canazon v. Cooper

300 A.D.2d 395, 751 N.Y.S.2d 740

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

DecidedDecember 9, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 395 (Canazon v. Cooper) 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

Canazon v. Cooper, 300 A.D.2d 395, 751 N.Y.S.2d 740 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Amodeo, J.), dated January 8, 2002, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Winslow, H.E.), dated August 3, 2001, granting the respondent’s application for a downward modification of her child support obligations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the record supports the Hearing Examiner’s determination that the respondent presented sufficient evidence of a change in circumstances to warrant a downward modification of her child support obligations (see Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132; Matter of Fisher v Robinson, 294 AD2d 362; see also Matter of Musumeci v Musumeci, 295 AD2d 516; Cattell v Cattell, 254 AD2d 357; Matter of Jimenez v Jimenez, 222 AD2d 589).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Smith, H. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

—In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Amodeo, J.), dated January 8, 2002, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Winslow, H.E.), dated August 3, 2001, granting the respondent’s application for a downward modification of her child support obligations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the record supports the Hearing Examiner’s determination that the respondent presented sufficient evidence of a change in circumstances to warrant a downward modification of her child support obligations (see Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132; Matter of Fisher v Robinson, 294 AD2d 362; see also Matter of Musumeci v Musumeci, 295 AD2d 516; Cattell v Cattell, 254 AD2d 357; Matter of Jimenez v Jimenez, 222 AD2d 589).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Smith, H. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 395, 751 N.Y.S.2d 740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canazon-v-cooper-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack