Donna R. v. Robert P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Donna R. v. Robert P.

209 A.D.2d 623, 619 N.Y.S.2d 131

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 21, 1994·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act § 413, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), entered April 20, 1993, which, inter alia, directed him to pay $302 per week in child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The parties had an out-of-wedlock child from their short-[624]*624term relationship. The father contends that application of the Child Support Standards Act (see, Family Ct Act §413) was unjust and inappropriate because the parties had never lived together and that the award, which was 17% of $80,000, was more than the needs of a two-year-old child. We disagree. The father does not fall within the exceptions set forth in Family Court Act § 413 (1) (b), (f), and the application of the statutory formula was not unjust or inappropriate (see, Matter of Kathy G. J. v Arnold D., 116 AD2d 247, 257). We have reviewed the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act § 413, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), entered April 20, 1993, which, inter alia, directed him to pay $302 per week in child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The parties had an out-of-wedlock child from their short-[624]*624term relationship. The father contends that application of the Child Support Standards Act (see, Family Ct Act §413) was unjust and inappropriate because the parties had never lived together and that the award, which was 17% of $80,000, was more than the needs of a two-year-old child. We disagree. The father does not fall within the exceptions set forth in Family Court Act § 413 (1) (b), (f), and the application of the statutory formula was not unjust or inappropriate (see, Matter of Kathy G. J. v Arnold D., 116 AD2d 247, 257). We have reviewed the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.

Donna R. v. Robert P., 209 A.D.2d 623, 619 N.Y.S.2d 131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

209 A.D.2d 623 (Donna R. v. Robert P.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related