Kefeli v. Kefeli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kefeli v. Kefeli

270 A.D.2d 490, 705 N.Y.S.2d 285, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3189

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 490 (Kefeli v. Kefeli) 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

Kefeli v. Kefeli, 270 A.D.2d 490, 705 N.Y.S.2d 285, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated December 18, 1998, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (LaFreniere, H.E.), dated September 4, 1998, denying his application to suspend his child support obligation and granting the mother’s petition to enforce a prior order of support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Family Court properly rejected the father’s claim that because of, inter alia, his prolonged unemployment, he was entitled to a suspension of his child support obligation. The father failed to present any competent evidence to support his claim that he had used his best efforts to obtain employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience (see, Matter of Dallin v Dallin, 250 AD2d 847; Matter of Heverin v Sackel, 239 AD2d 418; Matter of Yepes v Fichera, 230 AD2d 803).

The father’s remaining contentions lack merit. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Thompson and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated December 18, 1998, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (LaFreniere, H.E.), dated September 4, 1998, denying his application to suspend his child support obligation and granting the mother’s petition to enforce a prior order of support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Family Court properly rejected the father’s claim that because of, inter alia, his prolonged unemployment, he was entitled to a suspension of his child support obligation. The father failed to present any competent evidence to support his claim that he had used his best efforts to obtain employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience (see, Matter of Dallin v Dallin, 250 AD2d 847; Matter of Heverin v Sackel, 239 AD2d 418; Matter of Yepes v Fichera, 230 AD2d 803).

The father’s remaining contentions lack merit. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Thompson and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 490, 705 N.Y.S.2d 285, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kefeli-v-kefeli-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack