De LaFontaine v. Toms

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De LaFontaine v. Toms

1 A.D.3d 297, 767 N.Y.S.2d 596, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12497

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

DecidedNovember 25, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 A.D.3d 297 (De LaFontaine v. Toms) 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

De LaFontaine v. Toms, 1 A.D.3d 297, 767 N.Y.S.2d 596, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12497 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda Cohen, J.), entered on or about May 1, 2003, denying respondent’s objections to the decision of the Hearing Examiner, which had calculated the parties’ child-support obligations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Hearing Examiner’s findings as to the income of each party were based largely on his assessment of their respective credibility. The Family Court correctly declined to disturb that determination, which was amply supported by the law and the facts, inasmuch as the Hearing Examiner was in the best position to make that evaluation (see Matter of Sledge v Sledge, 228 AD2d 310 [1996]). Nor has appellant articulated any persuasive reason to overturn the calculations of child support. The Hearing Examiner offered a detailed analysis based upon the parties’ combined incomes, the needs of the child, and the statutory factors in Family Ct Act § 413 (1) (f) and (1) (c) (3) (see Matter of Cassano v Cassano, 85 NY2d 649 [1995]). We have examined [298]*298the parties’ remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda Cohen, J.), entered on or about May 1, 2003, denying respondent’s objections to the decision of the Hearing Examiner, which had calculated the parties’ child-support obligations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Hearing Examiner’s findings as to the income of each party were based largely on his assessment of their respective credibility. The Family Court correctly declined to disturb that determination, which was amply supported by the law and the facts, inasmuch as the Hearing Examiner was in the best position to make that evaluation (see Matter of Sledge v Sledge, 228 AD2d 310 [1996]). Nor has appellant articulated any persuasive reason to overturn the calculations of child support. The Hearing Examiner offered a detailed analysis based upon the parties’ combined incomes, the needs of the child, and the statutory factors in Family Ct Act § 413 (1) (f) and (1) (c) (3) (see Matter of Cassano v Cassano, 85 NY2d 649 [1995]). We have examined [298]*298the parties’ remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.3d 297, 767 N.Y.S.2d 596, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-lafontaine-v-toms-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack