Guevara v. Ubillus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guevara v. Ubillus

47 A.D.3d 715, 850 N.Y.S.2d 503

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 47 A.D.3d 715 (Guevara v. Ubillus) 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

Guevara v. Ubillus, 47 A.D.3d 715, 850 N.Y.S.2d 503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Fessala, J.), dated December 8, 2004, which denied her objections to an order of the same court (Cahn, S.M.), dated August 24, 2006, which, after a hearing, denied her petition for child support.

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

It is fundamental public policy in New York that parents of minor children are responsible for their children’s support until age 21 (see Family Ct Act § 413; Matter of Roe v Doe, 29 NY2d 188, 192-193 [1971]; Matter of Cellamare v Lakeman, 36 AD3d 906 [2007]). “Nevertheless, children of employable age and in full possession of their faculties who voluntarily and without cause abandon their home, against the will of their parents and for the purpose of avoiding parental control, forfeit their right [716]*716to demand support even if they are not financially self-sufficient” (Matter of Bailey v Bailey, 15 AD3d 577 [2005]; see Matter of Roe v Doe, 29 NY2d 188, 192-193 [1971]; Matter of Alice C. v Bernard G.C., 193 AD2d 97, 105 [1993]).

The evidence on the record sufficiently supports the finding that the petitioner, without good cause, abandoned the respondent’s home on her 18th birthday in order to avoid parental control and to gain independence from her mother’s restrictive household rules (see Matter of Roe v Doe, 29 NY2d 188 [1971]; Matter of Bailey v Bailey, 15 AD3d 577 [2005]; Matter of Commissioner of Social Serus. v Jones-Gamble, 227 AD2d 618 [1996]; cf. Matter of Drago v Drago, 138 AD2d 704, 706 [1988]). Accordingly, there is no basis to disturb the findings of the Support Magistrate, who was in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence offered, or the Family Court’s ultimate conclusion that the petitioner abandoned the mother’s home against the mother’s will and without cause (see Matter of Bailey v Bailey, 15 AD3d 577 [2005]). Fisher, J.P., Lifson, Covello and McCarthy, 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 petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Fessala, J.), dated December 8, 2004, which denied her objections to an order of the same court (Cahn, S.M.), dated August 24, 2006, which, after a hearing, denied her petition for child support.

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

It is fundamental public policy in New York that parents of minor children are responsible for their children’s support until age 21 (see Family Ct Act § 413; Matter of Roe v Doe, 29 NY2d 188, 192-193 [1971]; Matter of Cellamare v Lakeman, 36 AD3d 906 [2007]). “Nevertheless, children of employable age and in full possession of their faculties who voluntarily and without cause abandon their home, against the will of their parents and for the purpose of avoiding parental control, forfeit their right [716]*716to demand support even if they are not financially self-sufficient” (Matter of Bailey v Bailey, 15 AD3d 577 [2005]; see Matter of Roe v Doe, 29 NY2d 188, 192-193 [1971]; Matter of Alice C. v Bernard G.C., 193 AD2d 97, 105 [1993]).

The evidence on the record sufficiently supports the finding that the petitioner, without good cause, abandoned the respondent’s home on her 18th birthday in order to avoid parental control and to gain independence from her mother’s restrictive household rules (see Matter of Roe v Doe, 29 NY2d 188 [1971]; Matter of Bailey v Bailey, 15 AD3d 577 [2005]; Matter of Commissioner of Social Serus. v Jones-Gamble, 227 AD2d 618 [1996]; cf. Matter of Drago v Drago, 138 AD2d 704, 706 [1988]). Accordingly, there is no basis to disturb the findings of the Support Magistrate, who was in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence offered, or the Family Court’s ultimate conclusion that the petitioner abandoned the mother’s home against the mother’s will and without cause (see Matter of Bailey v Bailey, 15 AD3d 577 [2005]). Fisher, J.P., Lifson, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.3d 715, 850 N.Y.S.2d 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guevara-v-ubillus-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack