Eason v. Eason

86 A.D.2d 666, 446 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15208
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 29, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 86 A.D.2d 666 (Eason v. Eason) 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
Eason v. Eason, 86 A.D.2d 666, 446 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15208 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

In a support proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Mazzeo, J.), dated March 4,1981, which, inter alia, directed him to pay $250 a week for the support of his wife and daughter. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remitted to the Family Court, Orange County, for a further hearing as to the financial status and needs of the parties and for the entry of an appropriate order. There is no competent proof in the record on this appeal as to the financial needs of the appellant’s wife, daughter and son. The wife did not testify as to her needs or those of the children. The unsworn statement by the parties’ attorneys in the course of colloquy between the court and counsel and the financial data sheets, which are neither signed nor sworn to be true, cannot serve as a basis for a Family Court order of support (see Matter of Rensselaer County Dept, of Social Seros, v Cossart, 38 AD2d 635; Matter ofEagen v Bolden, 51 AD2d 1017; Matter of Smith v Smith, 70 AD2d 938). At the new hearing, the Family Court should bear in mind the principle that a parent is not liable for the support of a child during the period the child is employed and self-supporting (see Matter of Raphael v Raphael, 28 AD2d 551; Graffeo v Graffeo, 7 AD2d 741; Hotetz vHotetz, 60 Mise 2d 271). There was no competent evidence in the record upon which to determine if the parties’ son is in fact emancipated. Mollen, P. J., Weinstein, Gulotta and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Korosh v. Korosh
99 A.D.3d 909 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Commissioner of Social Services. v. Paul C.
73 A.D.3d 469 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Papandrea v. Pallan
56 A.D.2d 564 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Kenyon v. Kenyon
299 A.D.2d 863 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Pringle v. Pringle
296 A.D.2d 828 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Mobley-Jennings v. Dare
226 A.D.2d 730 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Mulder v. Mulder
191 A.D.2d 541 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Schmeling v. Schmeling
178 A.D.2d 999 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Westchester County Department of Social Services v. Cruz
170 A.D.2d 685 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Drago v. Drago
138 A.D.2d 704 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Toft ex rel. Beavers v. Beavers
124 A.D.2d 263 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
86 A.D.2d 666, 446 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eason-v-eason-nyappdiv-1982.