Jenkins v. McKinney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jenkins v. McKinney

21 A.D.3d 558, 799 N.Y.S.2d 904

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 22, 2005·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Richardson, J.), dated October 25, 2004, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Borofsky, S.M.), dated September 21, 2004, which, after a hearing, dismissed his petition, without prejudice, for failure to state a cause of action.

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

The Family Court properly denied the father’s objection to the order of the Support Magistrate. Contrary to the father’s contention, a court cannot reduce or annul child support arrears accrued before the making of an application to modify child support (see Family Ct Act § 451; Miller v Miller, 308 AD2d 541 [2003]; O’Connor v Curcio, 281 AD2d 100, 102 [2001]; Howfield v Howfield, 250 AD2d 573 [1998]; Matter of McCaffrey v McCaffrey, 134 AD2d 430, 431 [1987]). Cozier, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro and Rivera, 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, Queens County (Richardson, J.), dated October 25, 2004, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Borofsky, S.M.), dated September 21, 2004, which, after a hearing, dismissed his petition, without prejudice, for failure to state a cause of action.

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

The Family Court properly denied the father’s objection to the order of the Support Magistrate. Contrary to the father’s contention, a court cannot reduce or annul child support arrears accrued before the making of an application to modify child support (see Family Ct Act § 451; Miller v Miller, 308 AD2d 541 [2003]; O’Connor v Curcio, 281 AD2d 100, 102 [2001]; Howfield v Howfield, 250 AD2d 573 [1998]; Matter of McCaffrey v McCaffrey, 134 AD2d 430, 431 [1987]). Cozier, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Jenkins v. McKinney, 21 A.D.3d 558, 799 N.Y.S.2d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

21 A.D.3d 558 (Jenkins v. McKinney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related