Fisher v. Robinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fisher v. Robinson

294 A.D.2d 362, 741 N.Y.S.2d 719, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4831

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 6, 2002·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Lopez-Torres, J.), dated January 5, 2001, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (LaFreniere, H.E.), dated November 1, 2000, which dismissed his application for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant failed to establish a change in circumstances [363] sufficient to warrant downward modification of his child support obligation (see Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132; Matter of Murphy v Rutowicz, 271 AD2d 691).

We reject the father’s argument that his child support obligation should be proportionally offset by the amount of time the child spends with him (see Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723, 730-732). Finally, the Family Court properly found that the expenses the appellant claims he incurs to exercise visitation with the child do not constitute extraordinary expenses which warrant a downward modification of child support (see Juneau v Juneau, 240 AD2d 858, 859). Feuerstein, J.P., S. Miller, Krausman and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Lopez-Torres, J.), dated January 5, 2001, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (LaFreniere, H.E.), dated November 1, 2000, which dismissed his application for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant failed to establish a change in circumstances [363] sufficient to warrant downward modification of his child support obligation (see Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132; Matter of Murphy v Rutowicz, 271 AD2d 691).

We reject the father’s argument that his child support obligation should be proportionally offset by the amount of time the child spends with him (see Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723, 730-732). Finally, the Family Court properly found that the expenses the appellant claims he incurs to exercise visitation with the child do not constitute extraordinary expenses which warrant a downward modification of child support (see Juneau v Juneau, 240 AD2d 858, 859). Feuerstein, J.P., S. Miller, Krausman and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Fisher v. Robinson, 294 A.D.2d 362, 741 N.Y.S.2d 719, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4831 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

294 A.D.2d 362 (Fisher v. Robinson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related