Kraemer v. Kalish

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kraemer v. Kalish

11 A.D.3d 898, 782 N.Y.S.2d 221, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11283

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

DecidedOctober 1, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 11 A.D.3d 898 (Kraemer v. Kalish) 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

Kraemer v. Kalish, 11 A.D.3d 898, 782 N.Y.S.2d 221, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11283 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Joan S. Kohout, J.), entered April 23, 2003. The order denied petitioner’s objections to an order of a Hearing Examiner dismissing the petition for a downward modification of petitioner’s child support obligation.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

[899]*899Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order of Family-Court denying his objections to a Hearing Examiner’s order that dismissed his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation. We affirm the order inasmuch as the record on appeal is insufficient to enable this Court to determine whether petitioner established a significant change of circumstances and reduced income to entitle him to a downward modification of his child support obligation. “Petitioner therefore has failed to present ‘a sufficient record to allow appellate review of this issue’ ” (People ex rel. Person v Beilein, 306 AD2d 864, 865, [2003], quoting People v Barney, 99 NY2d 367, 374 [2003]; see also Yoonessi v State of New York, 289 AD2d 998, 1000 [2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 609 [2002], cert denied 537 US 1047 [2002]; Usyk v Track Side Blazers, 182 AD2d 1125 [1992]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Joan S. Kohout, J.), entered April 23, 2003. The order denied petitioner’s objections to an order of a Hearing Examiner dismissing the petition for a downward modification of petitioner’s child support obligation.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

[899]*899Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order of Family-Court denying his objections to a Hearing Examiner’s order that dismissed his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation. We affirm the order inasmuch as the record on appeal is insufficient to enable this Court to determine whether petitioner established a significant change of circumstances and reduced income to entitle him to a downward modification of his child support obligation. “Petitioner therefore has failed to present ‘a sufficient record to allow appellate review of this issue’ ” (People ex rel. Person v Beilein, 306 AD2d 864, 865, [2003], quoting People v Barney, 99 NY2d 367, 374 [2003]; see also Yoonessi v State of New York, 289 AD2d 998, 1000 [2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 609 [2002], cert denied 537 US 1047 [2002]; Usyk v Track Side Blazers, 182 AD2d 1125 [1992]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 898, 782 N.Y.S.2d 221, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kraemer-v-kalish-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack