Jimenez v. Jimenez

222 A.D.2d 589, 636 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12916
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 18, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 589 (Jimenez v. Jimenez) 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
Jimenez v. Jimenez, 222 A.D.2d 589, 636 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—In a support proceeding pursuant to the Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals [590]*590from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Esquirol, J.), dated March 18, 1994, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Garcia, H.E.), dated January 3, 1994, which, inter alia, granted the mother’s application for an upward modification of child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court correctly denied his objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order. The appellant’s payment of the basic child support obligation does not reduce the appellant’s income below the applicable poverty level or the applicable self-support reserve. Thus, the Hearing Examiner properly applied the guidelines found in the Child Support Standards Act in this case {see, Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [d]; cf., Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [f]).

We defer to the Hearing Examiner’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility with regard to the appellant’s claims of financial distress (see, Matter of Maddox v Doty, 186 AD2d 135, 136). Similarly, we defer to the Hearing Examiner’s determination that the mother sufficiently established that she incurred child care expenses of $100 per week {see, Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [c] [4]).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Yaroshevsky v. Yaroshevsky
194 N.Y.S.3d 296 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Klindworth v. Garron
40 A.D.3d 642 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Yarinsky v. Yarinsky
36 A.D.3d 1135 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Lewis v. Redhead
5 A.D.3d 600 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Canazon v. Cooper
300 A.D.2d 395 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Cattell v. Cattell
254 A.D.2d 357 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Stone v. Stone
236 A.D.2d 615 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 A.D.2d 589, 636 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimenez-v-jimenez-nyappdiv-1995.