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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 20, 1996·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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] Nassau 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] Nassau 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.

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

227 A.D.2d 561 (Joseph M. M. v. Mary Ellen C. M.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related