De Wolfe v. Hodge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Wolfe v. Hodge

98 A.D.2d 956, 470 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21279

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 98 A.D.2d 956 (De Wolfe v. Hodge) 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 Wolfe v. Hodge, 98 A.D.2d 956, 470 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21279 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We affirm Family Court’s order directing an upward modification of the child support provision of the divorce decree. Although Family Court erred by concluding that respondent should be responsible for two thirds of the children’s needs, since this direction would be tantamount to reallocating the [957]*957support burden established by the separation agreement (a power not enjoyed by Family Court [Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132, 139]), we note that Family Court made detailed findings of fact as required by CPLR 4213. From these factual findings, it is evident that Family Court also found that the children had unmet needs in the amount of the increase. The record established that petitioner’s net income plus the current level of child support from respondent were inadequate to meet the needs of the children and that respondent now has the resources to supply their unmet needs. Accordingly, the upward modification of support was proper. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Family Court, McLaughlin, J. — child support.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We affirm Family Court’s order directing an upward modification of the child support provision of the divorce decree. Although Family Court erred by concluding that respondent should be responsible for two thirds of the children’s needs, since this direction would be tantamount to reallocating the [957]*957support burden established by the separation agreement (a power not enjoyed by Family Court [Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132, 139]), we note that Family Court made detailed findings of fact as required by CPLR 4213. From these factual findings, it is evident that Family Court also found that the children had unmet needs in the amount of the increase. The record established that petitioner’s net income plus the current level of child support from respondent were inadequate to meet the needs of the children and that respondent now has the resources to supply their unmet needs. Accordingly, the upward modification of support was proper. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Family Court, McLaughlin, J. — child support.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A.D.2d 956, 470 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-wolfe-v-hodge-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack