Jennifer R. v. Michael C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jennifer R. v. Michael C.

49 A.D.3d 443, 854 N.Y.2d 378

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 443 (Jennifer R. v. Michael C.) 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

Jennifer R. v. Michael C., 49 A.D.3d 443, 854 N.Y.2d 378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

While respondent correctly points out that the irrebuttable mandatory minimum child support award of $25 per month set forth in Family Court Act § 413 (1) (g) is preempted under the Supremacy Clause (42 USC § 667 [b] [2]; Matter of Rose v Moody, 83 NY2d 65, 71-72 [1993], cert denied sub nom. Attorney General of N.Y. v Moody, 511 US 1084 [1994]; Matter of Lanzi v Lanzi, 298 AD2d 53, 56 [2002]), a review of the Family Court order at issue reveals that the $25 award was made pursuant to Family Court Act § 413 (1) (a), which provides, in relevant part, that “the parents of a child under the age of twenty-one years are chargeable with the support of such child and, if possessed of sufficient means or able to earn such means, shall be required to pay for child support a fair and reasonable sum as the court may determine” (emphasis added). Accordingly, we find that the child support award herein does not run afoul of the Supremacy Clause and, after a review of the record, further find that the Family Court did not err in ordering respondent to pay child [444]*444support in the amount of $25 per month (see Aregano v Aregano, 289 AD2d 1081 [2001]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

While respondent correctly points out that the irrebuttable mandatory minimum child support award of $25 per month set forth in Family Court Act § 413 (1) (g) is preempted under the Supremacy Clause (42 USC § 667 [b] [2]; Matter of Rose v Moody, 83 NY2d 65, 71-72 [1993], cert denied sub nom. Attorney General of N.Y. v Moody, 511 US 1084 [1994]; Matter of Lanzi v Lanzi, 298 AD2d 53, 56 [2002]), a review of the Family Court order at issue reveals that the $25 award was made pursuant to Family Court Act § 413 (1) (a), which provides, in relevant part, that “the parents of a child under the age of twenty-one years are chargeable with the support of such child and, if possessed of sufficient means or able to earn such means, shall be required to pay for child support a fair and reasonable sum as the court may determine” (emphasis added). Accordingly, we find that the child support award herein does not run afoul of the Supremacy Clause and, after a review of the record, further find that the Family Court did not err in ordering respondent to pay child [444]*444support in the amount of $25 per month (see Aregano v Aregano, 289 AD2d 1081 [2001]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 443, 854 N.Y.2d 378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jennifer-r-v-michael-c-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack