Joseph M. M. v. Mary Ellen C. M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joseph M. M. v. Mary Ellen C. M.

227 A.D.2d 561, 642 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5327

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

DecidedMay 20, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 561 (Joseph M. M. v. Mary Ellen C. M.) 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

Joseph M. M. v. Mary Ellen C. M., 227 A.D.2d 561, 642 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5327 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to terminate child support, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of the Family Court, [562]*562Nassau County (Koenig, J.), entered March 31, 1995, which, after a hearing, inter alia, suspended the father’s child support payments for his daughter.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The father demonstrated at the hearing that his 16-year-old daughter voluntarily refused all contacts with him without cause thereby constructively abandoning him, warranting discharge of his obligation to support her (see, Cohen v Schnepf, 94 AD2d 783; Matter of Rubino v Morgan, 224 AD2d 903). The mother contends that the father’s lack of contact with his daughter is attributable in part to her interference with visitation. However this would not constitute a ground for the resumption of child support payments (see, Hiross v Hiross, 224 AD2d 662). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Pizzuto and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to terminate child support, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of the Family Court, [562]*562Nassau County (Koenig, J.), entered March 31, 1995, which, after a hearing, inter alia, suspended the father’s child support payments for his daughter.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The father demonstrated at the hearing that his 16-year-old daughter voluntarily refused all contacts with him without cause thereby constructively abandoning him, warranting discharge of his obligation to support her (see, Cohen v Schnepf, 94 AD2d 783; Matter of Rubino v Morgan, 224 AD2d 903). The mother contends that the father’s lack of contact with his daughter is attributable in part to her interference with visitation. However this would not constitute a ground for the resumption of child support payments (see, Hiross v Hiross, 224 AD2d 662). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Pizzuto and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 561, 642 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-m-m-v-mary-ellen-c-m-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack