Giordano v. Giordano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giordano v. Giordano

289 A.D.2d 238, 734 N.Y.S.2d 483, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11773

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 3, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Dounias, J.), dated September 12, 2000, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Rodriguez, H.E.), dated June 1, 2000, which, after a hearing, granted the petitioner’s application for leave to enter a money judgment in the principal sum of $26,895 for arrears in child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, his obligation to pay child support arrears accrued pursuant to the parties’ judgment of divorce and was not affected by a prior order of the Family Court, Ulster County, issued in a proceeding pursuant to the now repealed Uniform Support of Dependents Law (Domestic Relations Law former art 3-A) (see, Matter of LaBoy v Hernandez, 131 AD2d 485; Nichols v Bardua, 74 AD2d 566).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or do not warrant reversal. Ritter, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Dounias, J.), dated September 12, 2000, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Rodriguez, H.E.), dated June 1, 2000, which, after a hearing, granted the petitioner’s application for leave to enter a money judgment in the principal sum of $26,895 for arrears in child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, his obligation to pay child support arrears accrued pursuant to the parties’ judgment of divorce and was not affected by a prior order of the Family Court, Ulster County, issued in a proceeding pursuant to the now repealed Uniform Support of Dependents Law (Domestic Relations Law former art 3-A) (see, Matter of LaBoy v Hernandez, 131 AD2d 485; Nichols v Bardua, 74 AD2d 566).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or do not warrant reversal. Ritter, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Giordano v. Giordano, 289 A.D.2d 238, 734 N.Y.S.2d 483, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11773 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

289 A.D.2d 238 (Giordano v. Giordano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related