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

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 190 A.D.2d 607 (Goldberg v. Munoz) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 607, 594 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldberg-v-munoz-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack