Davidson-Sakuma v. Sakuma

280 A.D.2d 577, 720 N.Y.S.2d 798, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1648
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 20, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 577 (Davidson-Sakuma v. Sakuma) 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
Davidson-Sakuma v. Sakuma, 280 A.D.2d 577, 720 N.Y.S.2d 798, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1648 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated August 18, 1995, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated June 25, 1999, which directed a hearing to aid in the disposition of the issue of the parties’ child support obligations and determined that the parties properly opted out of the Child Support Standards Act in their stipulation of settlement.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The portion of the order that directs a hearing to aid in the disposition of the issue of the parties’ child support obligations does not decide the issue and does not affect a substantial right (see, CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [v]). Therefore, it is not appeal-able as of right (see, Palma v Palma, 101 AD2d 812). Any party aggrieved by an order entered subsequent to the hearing may take an appeal (see, Liebling v Yankwitt, 109 AD2d 780; Devine [578]*578v Devine, 106 AD2d 487; Astuto v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 97 AD2d 805).

To the extent the plaintiff challenges the Supreme Court’s determination that the parties properly opted out of the Child Support Standards Act, she is not aggrieved by this determination, as it is a finding of fact which is not independently appealable (see, Clark v Weiner, 254 AD2d 322). There has not yet been a change in the defendant’s child support obligation (see, CPLR 5511). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Verderber v. Commander Enterprises Centereach, LLC
85 A.D.3d 770 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Zoref v. Glassman
44 A.D.3d 1036 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Barone v. Barone
41 A.D.3d 623 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Kornblum v. Kornblum
34 A.D.3d 749 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Sloboda v. Sloboda
24 A.D.3d 533 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Rosen v. Swarzman
296 A.D.2d 392 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Berliner v. Berliner
294 A.D.2d 524 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Ameen v. Ameen
294 A.D.2d 319 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
280 A.D.2d 577, 720 N.Y.S.2d 798, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davidson-sakuma-v-sakuma-nyappdiv-2001.