Kolb v. Rice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kolb v. Rice

224 A.D.2d 1037, 637 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1765

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 1037 (Kolb v. Rice) 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

Kolb v. Rice, 224 A.D.2d 1037, 637 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent is not entitled to credit for child support payments he made pursuant to a temporary order that was vacated before the present petition was filed. The present order requiring respondent to pay child support in the sum of $148.86 per week is retroactive only to August 4, 1994, the date of the petition. The payments made by respondent were pursuant to a temporary order for a period that preceded the period in issue; consequently, respondent is not entitled to credit them against his present support obligation (see, Matter of Smith v Smith, 191 AD2d 1007, 1008). (Appeal from Order of Oswego County Family Court, Roman, J.— Child Support.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Doerr, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent is not entitled to credit for child support payments he made pursuant to a temporary order that was vacated before the present petition was filed. The present order requiring respondent to pay child support in the sum of $148.86 per week is retroactive only to August 4, 1994, the date of the petition. The payments made by respondent were pursuant to a temporary order for a period that preceded the period in issue; consequently, respondent is not entitled to credit them against his present support obligation (see, Matter of Smith v Smith, 191 AD2d 1007, 1008). (Appeal from Order of Oswego County Family Court, Roman, J.— Child Support.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Doerr, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 1037, 637 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kolb-v-rice-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack