Hores v. Hores

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hores v. Hores

24 A.D.3d 665, 805 N.Y.S.2d 846

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

DecidedDecember 19, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.3d 665 (Hores v. Hores) 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

Hores v. Hores, 24 A.D.3d 665, 805 N.Y.S.2d 846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Pessala, J), dated February 18, 2004, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Dwyer, S.M.) dated October 27, 2003, which, after a hearing, denied his application for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

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

The Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to [666]*666the Support Magistrate’s order. The father failed to establish a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant downward modification of his child support obligation (see Matter of Murphy v Rutowicz, 271 AD2d 691 [2000]; Matter of Kotlyar v Burshtein, 268 AD2d 433 [2000]; see also Matter of Yaroshenko v Kats, 7 AD3d 806 [2004]; Matter of Yourman v Yourman, 216 AD2d 308 [1995]; Praeger v Praeger, 162 AD2d 671 [1990]).

The father’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Cozier, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Skelos, 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, Nassau County (Pessala, J), dated February 18, 2004, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Dwyer, S.M.) dated October 27, 2003, which, after a hearing, denied his application for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

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

The Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to [666]*666the Support Magistrate’s order. The father failed to establish a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant downward modification of his child support obligation (see Matter of Murphy v Rutowicz, 271 AD2d 691 [2000]; Matter of Kotlyar v Burshtein, 268 AD2d 433 [2000]; see also Matter of Yaroshenko v Kats, 7 AD3d 806 [2004]; Matter of Yourman v Yourman, 216 AD2d 308 [1995]; Praeger v Praeger, 162 AD2d 671 [1990]).

The father’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Cozier, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 665, 805 N.Y.S.2d 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hores-v-hores-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack