Guzzi v. Tsicalos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guzzi v. Tsicalos

279 A.D.2d 473, 719 N.Y.S.2d 591, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 171

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 473 (Guzzi v. Tsicalos) 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

Guzzi v. Tsicalos, 279 A.D.2d 473, 719 N.Y.S.2d 591, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 171 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kent, J.), entered August 25, 1999, which granted the mother’s objections to an order of the same court (Rodriguez, H.E.), dated February 2, 1999, granting his application for downward modification of his child support obligation, denied his application, and remitted the matter to the Hearing Examiner for a recalculation of arrears owed.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances, the Family Court properly granted the mother’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s determination (see, Cymes v Cymes, 235 AD2d 312; Matter of Nankervis v Nankervis, 174 AD2d 674; Matter of McCarthy v Braiman, 125 AD2d 572). Krausman, J. P., Luciano, H. Miller and Feuerstein, 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 father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kent, J.), entered August 25, 1999, which granted the mother’s objections to an order of the same court (Rodriguez, H.E.), dated February 2, 1999, granting his application for downward modification of his child support obligation, denied his application, and remitted the matter to the Hearing Examiner for a recalculation of arrears owed.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances, the Family Court properly granted the mother’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s determination (see, Cymes v Cymes, 235 AD2d 312; Matter of Nankervis v Nankervis, 174 AD2d 674; Matter of McCarthy v Braiman, 125 AD2d 572). Krausman, J. P., Luciano, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 473, 719 N.Y.S.2d 591, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guzzi-v-tsicalos-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack