Maria C. v. Jorge R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maria C. v. Jorge R.

61 A.D.3d 518, 875 N.Y.S.2d 899

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

DecidedApril 16, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.3d 518 (Maria C. v. Jorge R.) 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

Maria C. v. Jorge R., 61 A.D.3d 518, 875 N.Y.S.2d 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Juan M. Merchan, J.), entered on or about May 5, 2008, which denied respondent’s objection to a Magistrate’s order of support directing payment of child support in the amount of $82 per week, plus a retroactive lump-sum payment of $3,199, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since respondent provided insufficient evidence to allow the Support Magistrate to determine his gross income and its application to various asserted medical conditions, the Magistrate had no option but to base his determination of child support on the child’s needs (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [k]), rather than on respondent’s means (§ 413 [1] [a]; see Matter of Denham v Kaplan, 16 AD3d 685 [2005]).

We have considered respondent’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Nardelli, Catterson, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Juan M. Merchan, J.), entered on or about May 5, 2008, which denied respondent’s objection to a Magistrate’s order of support directing payment of child support in the amount of $82 per week, plus a retroactive lump-sum payment of $3,199, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since respondent provided insufficient evidence to allow the Support Magistrate to determine his gross income and its application to various asserted medical conditions, the Magistrate had no option but to base his determination of child support on the child’s needs (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [k]), rather than on respondent’s means (§ 413 [1] [a]; see Matter of Denham v Kaplan, 16 AD3d 685 [2005]).

We have considered respondent’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Nardelli, Catterson, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 518, 875 N.Y.S.2d 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maria-c-v-jorge-r-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack