Matter of James B. v. Regina D.S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of James B. v. Regina D.S.

132 A.D.3d 505, 17 N.Y.S.3d 642

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

DecidedOctober 15, 2015

Docket15884

StatusPublished

This text of 132 A.D.3d 505 (Matter of James B. v. Regina D.S.) 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

Matter of James B. v. Regina D.S., 132 A.D.3d 505, 17 N.Y.S.3d 642 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about June 23, 2014, which denied petitioner’s objection to an order dismissing his petition for downward modification of an order of child support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to meet his burden of establishing the existence of a substantial change of circumstances sufficient to warrant a downward modification of child support (O’Brien v McCann, 249 AD2d 92, 92 [1st Dept 1998]). Petitioner failed to show that he lost his job through no fault of his own (see id. at 93).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions, including those regarding his paternity and respondent’s default, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about June 23, 2014, which denied petitioner’s objection to an order dismissing his petition for downward modification of an order of child support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to meet his burden of establishing the existence of a substantial change of circumstances sufficient to warrant a downward modification of child support (O’Brien v McCann, 249 AD2d 92, 92 [1st Dept 1998]). Petitioner failed to show that he lost his job through no fault of his own (see id. at 93).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions, including those regarding his paternity and respondent’s default, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.3d 505, 17 N.Y.S.3d 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-james-b-v-regina-ds-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack