Ginther v. Ginther

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ginther v. Ginther

13 A.D.3d 1128, 786 N.Y.S.2d 774, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16423

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 2004·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Patricia A. Maxwell, J), entered May 9, 2003 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 4. The order denied petitioner’s objections to the order of the Hearing Examiner.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum:

Family Court properly denied the objections of petitioner to the Hearing Examiner’s order dismissing his petition seeking a downward modification of his child support obligation. Petitioner failed to meet his burden of establishing an unanticipated or unreasonable change of circumstances warranting that relief (see Leroy v Leroy, 298 AD2d 923, 923-924 [2002]; Matter of De Luca v Randall, 285 AD2d 684, 686 [2001]). Petitioner also failed to establish good cause for termination of the income execution issued by the support collection unit (see Family Ct Act § 440 [1] [b] [1]). Finally, the Hearing Examiner did not abuse her discretion in denying petitioner’s request that she recuse herself (see Matter of Herald v Herald, 305 AD2d 1080 [2003]). Present—Green, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Patricia A. Maxwell, J), entered May 9, 2003 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 4. The order denied petitioner’s objections to the order of the Hearing Examiner.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum:

Family Court properly denied the objections of petitioner to the Hearing Examiner’s order dismissing his petition seeking a downward modification of his child support obligation. Petitioner failed to meet his burden of establishing an unanticipated or unreasonable change of circumstances warranting that relief (see Leroy v Leroy, 298 AD2d 923, 923-924 [2002]; Matter of De Luca v Randall, 285 AD2d 684, 686 [2001]). Petitioner also failed to establish good cause for termination of the income execution issued by the support collection unit (see Family Ct Act § 440 [1] [b] [1]). Finally, the Hearing Examiner did not abuse her discretion in denying petitioner’s request that she recuse herself (see Matter of Herald v Herald, 305 AD2d 1080 [2003]). Present—Green, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

Ginther v. Ginther, 13 A.D.3d 1128, 786 N.Y.S.2d 774, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

13 A.D.3d 1128 (Ginther v. Ginther) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related