DePinto v. DePinto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DePinto v. DePinto

284 A.D.2d 459, 726 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6288

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

DecidedJune 18, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 459 (DePinto v. DePinto) 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

DePinto v. DePinto, 284 A.D.2d 459, 726 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6288 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Dickerson, J.), dated May 4, 2000, as denied his objections to an order of the same court (Hochberg, H.E.), dated February 9, 2000, which, after a hearing, dismissed his petition, inter alia, for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, he failed to establish that he was entitled to a downward modification of his child support obligation (see, Matter of Graby v Graby, 87 NY2d 605; Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132; Matter of Ladd v Suffolk County Dept. of Sodal Servs., 199 AD2d 393).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Dickerson, J.), dated May 4, 2000, as denied his objections to an order of the same court (Hochberg, H.E.), dated February 9, 2000, which, after a hearing, dismissed his petition, inter alia, for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, he failed to establish that he was entitled to a downward modification of his child support obligation (see, Matter of Graby v Graby, 87 NY2d 605; Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132; Matter of Ladd v Suffolk County Dept. of Sodal Servs., 199 AD2d 393).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 459, 726 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/depinto-v-depinto-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack