Culton v. Parker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Culton v. Parker

4 A.D.3d 471, 771 N.Y.S.2d 689

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 4 A.D.3d 471 (Culton v. Parker) 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

Culton v. Parker, 4 A.D.3d 471, 771 N.Y.S.2d 689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Klein, J.), entered May 3, 2002, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Herold, H.E.), entered December 6, 2001, which reduced his child support obligation only temporarily until February 23, 2002.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his objections to the order temporarily reducing his child support obligation (see Friedman v Friedman, 309 AD2d 830 [2003]; Matter of Musumeci v Musumeci, 295 AD2d 516 [2002]; Matter of Heverin v Sackel, 239 AD2d 418 [1997]; Matter of Yepes v Fichera, 230 AD2d 803 [1996]; Matter of Johnson v Johnson, 55 AD2d 605 [1976]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached light of our determination. Florio, J.P, Smith, Luciano and Rivera, 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, Westchester County (Klein, J.), entered May 3, 2002, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Herold, H.E.), entered December 6, 2001, which reduced his child support obligation only temporarily until February 23, 2002.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his objections to the order temporarily reducing his child support obligation (see Friedman v Friedman, 309 AD2d 830 [2003]; Matter of Musumeci v Musumeci, 295 AD2d 516 [2002]; Matter of Heverin v Sackel, 239 AD2d 418 [1997]; Matter of Yepes v Fichera, 230 AD2d 803 [1996]; Matter of Johnson v Johnson, 55 AD2d 605 [1976]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached light of our determination. Florio, J.P, Smith, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 471, 771 N.Y.S.2d 689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/culton-v-parker-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack