Kahl-Lapine v. Lapine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kahl-Lapine v. Lapine

35 A.D.3d 611, 824 N.Y.S.2d 742

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

DecidedDecember 12, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 35 A.D.3d 611 (Kahl-Lapine v. Lapine) 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

Kahl-Lapine v. Lapine, 35 A.D.3d 611, 824 N.Y.S.2d 742 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Simeone, J.), dated November 22, 2005, as denied her objections to an order of the same court (Rodriguez, S.M.), dated June 24, 2005, which, after a hearing, fixed her arrears for medical and dental payments in the sum of $1,947.53.

Ordered that the order dated November 22, 2005 is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

[612]*612The Family Court properly denied the mother’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order (see Matter of Mahoney v Goggins, 24 AD3d 668, 669 [2005]). In reviewing a determination of the Family Court, great deference should be given to the determination of the Support Magistrate, who was in the best position to hear and evaluate the evidence, as well as the credibility of the witnesses (see Matter of Musarra v Musarra, 28 AD3d 668, 669 [2006]). The record supports the Support Magistrate’s finding that the mother was responsible for a total of $1,947.53 in unreimbursed medical and dental expenses for the parties’ children (see Matter of Penninipede v Penninipede, 6 AD3d 445, 447 [2004]; Matter of Ciccone v Ciccone, 287 AD2d 563 [2001]). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Simeone, J.), dated November 22, 2005, as denied her objections to an order of the same court (Rodriguez, S.M.), dated June 24, 2005, which, after a hearing, fixed her arrears for medical and dental payments in the sum of $1,947.53.

Ordered that the order dated November 22, 2005 is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

[612]*612The Family Court properly denied the mother’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order (see Matter of Mahoney v Goggins, 24 AD3d 668, 669 [2005]). In reviewing a determination of the Family Court, great deference should be given to the determination of the Support Magistrate, who was in the best position to hear and evaluate the evidence, as well as the credibility of the witnesses (see Matter of Musarra v Musarra, 28 AD3d 668, 669 [2006]). The record supports the Support Magistrate’s finding that the mother was responsible for a total of $1,947.53 in unreimbursed medical and dental expenses for the parties’ children (see Matter of Penninipede v Penninipede, 6 AD3d 445, 447 [2004]; Matter of Ciccone v Ciccone, 287 AD2d 563 [2001]). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 611, 824 N.Y.S.2d 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kahl-lapine-v-lapine-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack