Leyda D. v. John A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leyda D. v. John A.

216 A.D.2d 561, 628 N.Y.S.2d 798, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7006

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

DecidedJune 26, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 561 (Leyda D. v. John A.) 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

Leyda D. v. John A., 216 A.D.2d 561, 628 N.Y.S.2d 798, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7006 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5 to establish paternity and for an order of support, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Sparrow, J.), dated April 13, 1993, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Marchetti, H.E.), dated March 9, 1993, as directed him to pay child support of $244 biweekly, which includes $94 for child care.

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

The father contends that the application of the Child Support Standards Act (hereinafter CSSA) to the facts of this case

[562]*562(see, Family Ct Act § 413), is unjust and inappropriate because, after paying his child support obligations, he is unable to meet his monthly expenses. However, the father has failed to rebut the presumption that the application of the CSSA guidelines yielded the correct amount of child support (see, Matter of Maddox v Doty, 186 AD2d 135). Moreover, contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court properly considered the father’s financial resources, which include voluntary contributions to retirement and savings plans (see, Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [f|; Matter of Webb v Rugg, 197 AD2d 777).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, 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 5 to establish paternity and for an order of support, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Sparrow, J.), dated April 13, 1993, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Marchetti, H.E.), dated March 9, 1993, as directed him to pay child support of $244 biweekly, which includes $94 for child care.

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

The father contends that the application of the Child Support Standards Act (hereinafter CSSA) to the facts of this case

[562]*562(see, Family Ct Act § 413), is unjust and inappropriate because, after paying his child support obligations, he is unable to meet his monthly expenses. However, the father has failed to rebut the presumption that the application of the CSSA guidelines yielded the correct amount of child support (see, Matter of Maddox v Doty, 186 AD2d 135). Moreover, contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court properly considered the father’s financial resources, which include voluntary contributions to retirement and savings plans (see, Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [f|; Matter of Webb v Rugg, 197 AD2d 777).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 561, 628 N.Y.S.2d 798, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leyda-d-v-john-a-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack