DiOrio v. Rossman

73 A.D.3d 1352, 899 N.Y.S.2d 920
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 20, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 73 A.D.3d 1352 (DiOrio v. Rossman) 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
DiOrio v. Rossman, 73 A.D.3d 1352, 899 N.Y.S.2d 920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Egan Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Connerton, J.), entered April 8, 2009, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 4, to direct respondent to pay child support arrears.

The parties are the parents of a son, born in 1988. Eetitioner, claiming that the son had lived with her for a period of time, commenced this proceeding in September 2008 and sought an award of child support. Following a hearing, a Support Magistrate determined that the son resided with petitioner from September 2008 until entering the armed forces in February 2009 and, accordingly, directed respondent to pay child support arrears to account for that period. Family Court denied respondent’s objections and he now appeals.

We affirm. The record amply supports the finding that the parties’ son lived with petitioner during the relevant period and was not emancipated, rendering an award of child support appropriate (see Matter of Kendall v Fazzone, 18 AD3d 908 [2005]; Matter of Bogin v Goodrich, 265 AD2d 779, 781 [1999]). Further, respondent made minimal efforts to substantiate his claim that his share of the basic child support obligation was unjust or inappropriate and, given the proof in the record, Family Court appropriately denied his objections in that regard (see Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [c] [2]; [f]; Matter of Weymouth v Mullin, 42 AD3d 681, 682 [2007]; Matter of Hitlin v Towers, 175 AD2d 382, 383 [1991]). His remaining argument is unpreserved for our review.

Spain, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

BAKER, DAWN L. v. BAKER, JEFFREY P.
129 A.D.3d 1541 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 A.D.3d 1352, 899 N.Y.S.2d 920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diorio-v-rossman-nyappdiv-2010.