Gaudio v. Gaudio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gaudio v. Gaudio

280 A.D.2d 600, 720 N.Y.S.2d 799, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1697

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 20, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 600 (Gaudio v. Gaudio) 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

Gaudio v. Gaudio, 280 A.D.2d 600, 720 N.Y.S.2d 799, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Dounias, J.), entered August 24, 1999, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Goglas, H.E.), dated May 10, 1999, denying his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The father previously petitioned for a downward modification of his child support obligation based on his claim of loss of employment. The Family Court, Suffolk County, denied the application, finding that the father was responsible for losing his job. Consequently, we agree with the Family Court that the father is collaterally estopped from relitigating, on the current petition for similar relief, the issue of whether his diminished income is due to his own substantial misconduct (see, Matter of [601]*601Knights v Knights, 71 NY2d 865; Matter of Capalbo v Capalbo, 148 AD2d 705). O’Brien, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Schmidt, 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, Suffolk County (Dounias, J.), entered August 24, 1999, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Goglas, H.E.), dated May 10, 1999, denying his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The father previously petitioned for a downward modification of his child support obligation based on his claim of loss of employment. The Family Court, Suffolk County, denied the application, finding that the father was responsible for losing his job. Consequently, we agree with the Family Court that the father is collaterally estopped from relitigating, on the current petition for similar relief, the issue of whether his diminished income is due to his own substantial misconduct (see, Matter of [601]*601Knights v Knights, 71 NY2d 865; Matter of Capalbo v Capalbo, 148 AD2d 705). O’Brien, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 600, 720 N.Y.S.2d 799, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaudio-v-gaudio-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack