Lannigan v. Lannigan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lannigan v. Lannigan

269 A.D.2d 448, 702 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1378

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 448 (Lannigan v. Lannigan) 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

Lannigan v. Lannigan, 269 A.D.2d 448, 702 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 for an upward modification of child support, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Trainor, J.), entered December 1, 1998, which granted the mother’s objections to an order of the same court (Buse, H.E.), dated August 10, 1998, which granted the father’s objections to an adjusted order of support proposed by the Child Support Enforcement Unit.

[449]*449Ordered that the order is reversed, the mother’s objections are denied, the order dated August 10, 1998, is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing to determine whether the adjusted order of support proposed by the Child Support Enforcement Unit is “unjust or inappropriate” based on the considerations enumerated in Family Court Act § 413 (1) (f).

A request pending on or before December 31,1997, for a support collection unit to review a child support order is determined in accordance with Family Court Act § 413 (3) as it existed- prior to the modifications to that statute effective on January 1, 1998 (L 1998, ch 214, § 64). By letter dated November 16, 1997, the mother requested that the Child Support Enforcement Unit (hereinafter the CSEU) review the child support order in this matter. The CSEU issued a “notice of intent to review child support order” on December 31, 1997. Therefore, the CSEU properly based its review upon Family Court Act § 413 (3) as it existed prior to the modifications implemented on January 1, 1998.

However, the record is devoid of any indication that the Family Court considered whether the adjusted order of support proposed by the CSEU was “unjust or inappropriate” within the meaning of Family Court Act § 413 (1) (f). Therefore, a hearing must be held to determine this issue (see, Matter of Karras v Olton, 244 AD2d 409; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. [Selena S.] v Conrad R.W., 222 AD2d 585). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and S. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 for an upward modification of child support, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Trainor, J.), entered December 1, 1998, which granted the mother’s objections to an order of the same court (Buse, H.E.), dated August 10, 1998, which granted the father’s objections to an adjusted order of support proposed by the Child Support Enforcement Unit.

[449]*449Ordered that the order is reversed, the mother’s objections are denied, the order dated August 10, 1998, is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing to determine whether the adjusted order of support proposed by the Child Support Enforcement Unit is “unjust or inappropriate” based on the considerations enumerated in Family Court Act § 413 (1) (f).

A request pending on or before December 31,1997, for a support collection unit to review a child support order is determined in accordance with Family Court Act § 413 (3) as it existed- prior to the modifications to that statute effective on January 1, 1998 (L 1998, ch 214, § 64). By letter dated November 16, 1997, the mother requested that the Child Support Enforcement Unit (hereinafter the CSEU) review the child support order in this matter. The CSEU issued a “notice of intent to review child support order” on December 31, 1997. Therefore, the CSEU properly based its review upon Family Court Act § 413 (3) as it existed prior to the modifications implemented on January 1, 1998.

However, the record is devoid of any indication that the Family Court considered whether the adjusted order of support proposed by the CSEU was “unjust or inappropriate” within the meaning of Family Court Act § 413 (1) (f). Therefore, a hearing must be held to determine this issue (see, Matter of Karras v Olton, 244 AD2d 409; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. [Selena S.] v Conrad R.W., 222 AD2d 585). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and S. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 448, 702 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lannigan-v-lannigan-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack