Dey v. Bayard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dey v. Bayard

8 A.D.3d 666, 779 N.Y.S.2d 243, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9155

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

DecidedJune 28, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 666 (Dey v. Bayard) 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

Dey v. Bayard, 8 A.D.3d 666, 779 N.Y.S.2d 243, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9155 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to vacate certain child support arrears allegedly owed by the petitioner, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated April 2, 2003, which denied his petition to recompute his child support arrears to reflect a child support payment he allegedly made in the amount of $9,000 and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing in accordance herewith.

The petitioner sought, in effect, a credit in the amount of $9,000 against child support arrears he allegedly owed. In support of his petition, the petitioner submitted a canceled check, dated June 5, 1984, made payable to “Marie Denise Bayard” in the sum of $9,000. The Supreme Court found, inter alia, that the documentary evidence attached to the moving papers did not “demonstrate the payment of child support in discharge of a legal obligation to pay same for which he is entitled to a credit with the Child Support Enforcement Bureau against arrears computed by said bureau.” The Supreme Court denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding. We reverse.

As the petitioner established that he made a payment to “Marie Denise Bayard” in the amount of $9,000 and submitted a copy of the canceled check, the Supreme Court erred in summarily denying his petition. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing to determine whether the alleged payment of $9,000 made by the petitioner was for child support, and whether he is entitled to a credit in child support arrears (see Amaris v Amaris, 305 AD2d 618, 620 [2003]). Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Townes, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to vacate certain child support arrears allegedly owed by the petitioner, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated April 2, 2003, which denied his petition to recompute his child support arrears to reflect a child support payment he allegedly made in the amount of $9,000 and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing in accordance herewith.

The petitioner sought, in effect, a credit in the amount of $9,000 against child support arrears he allegedly owed. In support of his petition, the petitioner submitted a canceled check, dated June 5, 1984, made payable to “Marie Denise Bayard” in the sum of $9,000. The Supreme Court found, inter alia, that the documentary evidence attached to the moving papers did not “demonstrate the payment of child support in discharge of a legal obligation to pay same for which he is entitled to a credit with the Child Support Enforcement Bureau against arrears computed by said bureau.” The Supreme Court denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding. We reverse.

As the petitioner established that he made a payment to “Marie Denise Bayard” in the amount of $9,000 and submitted a copy of the canceled check, the Supreme Court erred in summarily denying his petition. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing to determine whether the alleged payment of $9,000 made by the petitioner was for child support, and whether he is entitled to a credit in child support arrears (see Amaris v Amaris, 305 AD2d 618, 620 [2003]). Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Townes, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 666, 779 N.Y.S.2d 243, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dey-v-bayard-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack