Goldberg v. Munoz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldberg v. Munoz

190 A.D.2d 607, 594 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1661

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 23, 1993·Published

Opinion

— Order, Family Court, New York County (Leah Ruth Marks, J.), entered on or about January 23, 1992, which, after a hearing, adjudged appellant in contempt and sentenced him to weekend incarceration of six months or until he has paid arrears of $17,200.00, whichever comes first, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Appellant’s former wife brought a proceeding to enforce support obligations imposed under a judgment of divorce, and appellant cross-petitioned for downward modification. Contrary to appellant’s contention, the hearing court properly weighed the comparative resources and equities of the two parents (see, Matter of Department of Welfare v "Mallory ”, 20 AD2d 884), and the present circumstances of appellant as opposed to his circumstances when the original obligation was imposed (see, Matter of Shipley v Shipley, 55 AD2d 577).

We have considered the remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Ross, JJ.

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

— Order, Family Court, New York County (Leah Ruth Marks, J.), entered on or about January 23, 1992, which, after a hearing, adjudged appellant in contempt and sentenced him to weekend incarceration of six months or until he has paid arrears of $17,200.00, whichever comes first, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Appellant’s former wife brought a proceeding to enforce support obligations imposed under a judgment of divorce, and appellant cross-petitioned for downward modification. Contrary to appellant’s contention, the hearing court properly weighed the comparative resources and equities of the two parents (see, Matter of Department of Welfare v "Mallory ”, 20 AD2d 884), and the present circumstances of appellant as opposed to his circumstances when the original obligation was imposed (see, Matter of Shipley v Shipley, 55 AD2d 577).

We have considered the remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Ross, JJ.

Goldberg v. Munoz, 190 A.D.2d 607, 594 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

190 A.D.2d 607 (Goldberg v. Munoz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related