Dowsett v. Dowsett

172 A.D.2d 610, 570 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4651
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 8, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 610 (Dowsett v. Dowsett) 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
Dowsett v. Dowsett, 172 A.D.2d 610, 570 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4651 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the respondent former husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (De Maro, J.), entered August 21, 1989, as denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (O’Shea, H.E.), entered May 2, 1989, as granted the application of the petitioner for an upward modification of the amount of alimony fixed in a prior judgment of divorce between the parties.

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

In the proceeding at bar, the Department of Social Services sought an order increasing the amount of alimony the petitioner’s former husband must pay as she is a recipient of public assistance. This application effectively sought to reallocate the burden of support between the Department of Social Services and the former husband.

Upon our review of the record, including the former husband’s financial documents, we find that the Family Court [611]*611properly determined that he was capable of bearing a greater portion of his former wife’s support (see, Dunn v Dunn, 124 AD2d 309) and that the Department of Social Services, on behalf of the former wife, was entitled to an upward modification of alimony given her status as a recipient of public assistance (see, Matter of Department of Social Servs. v Caro, 65 AD2d 811, 812).

We note that to the extent the former husband has raised for the first time on appeal constitutional arguments against the increase, those arguments are not properly before us (see, Melahn v Hearn, 60 NY2d 944, 945; Matter of Tiffany B., 111 AD2d 168, lv denied 65 NY2d 606, cert denied 474 US 862). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Gonzalez v. Ovalles-Taveras
68 A.D.3d 1110 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Brown
64 A.D.3d 611 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
H.M. v. E.T.
65 A.D.3d 119 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Campos v. Ofman
49 A.D.3d 485 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Glaser v. County of Orange
22 A.D.3d 720 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Village of Westbury v. Straehle
307 A.D.2d 931 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Matarrese v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
247 A.D.2d 475 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
North Fork Bank & Trust Co. v. Boe
198 A.D.2d 336 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Daubman v. Nassau County Civil Service Commission
195 A.D.2d 602 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
172 A.D.2d 610, 570 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dowsett-v-dowsett-nyappdiv-1991.