Casale v. Bos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Casale v. Bos

261 A.D.2d 400, 689 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4484

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

DecidedMay 3, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 400 (Casale v. Bos) 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

Casale v. Bos, 261 A.D.2d 400, 689 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4484 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kent, J.), entered April 15, 1998, which sustained the mother’s objections to an order of the same court (Deedy, H.E.), dated December 19, 1997, and increased the father’s child support obligation to $125 per week.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

At the hearing on the mother’s application for an upward modification of child support, the father testified that there was a shortfall of more than $1,000 per month between his expenses and his alleged income, which was never satisfactorily explained. He farther acknowledged that he had recently undertaken several home improvement projects which had a combined cost of approximately $33,000. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the determination rendered by the Hearing Examiner as to the amount of the father’s earnings could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Richard’s Home Ctr. & Lbr. v Kraft, 199 AD2d 254). It was therefore proper for the Family Court to sustain the mother’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order.

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kent, J.), entered April 15, 1998, which sustained the mother’s objections to an order of the same court (Deedy, H.E.), dated December 19, 1997, and increased the father’s child support obligation to $125 per week.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

At the hearing on the mother’s application for an upward modification of child support, the father testified that there was a shortfall of more than $1,000 per month between his expenses and his alleged income, which was never satisfactorily explained. He farther acknowledged that he had recently undertaken several home improvement projects which had a combined cost of approximately $33,000. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the determination rendered by the Hearing Examiner as to the amount of the father’s earnings could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Richard’s Home Ctr. & Lbr. v Kraft, 199 AD2d 254). It was therefore proper for the Family Court to sustain the mother’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order.

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 400, 689 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casale-v-bos-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack