Cheryl R. v. Laurence R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cheryl R. v. Laurence R.

223 A.D.2d 484, 637 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 560

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 484 (Cheryl R. v. Laurence R.) 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

Cheryl R. v. Laurence R., 223 A.D.2d 484, 637 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 560 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about September 13,1994, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for a downward [485]*485modification of his child support obligation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The wishes of defendant’s second wife that her income no longer be used to pay defendant’s child support obligation is not a change of circumstances warranting a downward modification of support. The court obligated defendant, not his second wife, to pay child support, and if the latter has had a change of heart as to how she wishes family resources to be allocated, then defendant must find some other means of meeting his obligation (see, Hickland v Hickland, 39 NY2d 1, 6, cert denied 429 US 941; Ferlo v Ferlo, 152 AD2d 980, 980-981). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about September 13,1994, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for a downward [485]*485modification of his child support obligation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The wishes of defendant’s second wife that her income no longer be used to pay defendant’s child support obligation is not a change of circumstances warranting a downward modification of support. The court obligated defendant, not his second wife, to pay child support, and if the latter has had a change of heart as to how she wishes family resources to be allocated, then defendant must find some other means of meeting his obligation (see, Hickland v Hickland, 39 NY2d 1, 6, cert denied 429 US 941; Ferlo v Ferlo, 152 AD2d 980, 980-981). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 484, 637 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cheryl-r-v-laurence-r-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack