Matter of Jose R. v. Yvette-Ortiz M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Jose R. v. Yvette-Ortiz M.

123 A.D.3d 412, 999 N.Y.S.2d 1

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 2, 2014·No. 13633·Published

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, *413 J.), entered on or about April 19, 2013, which denied petitioner father’s objection to the Support Magistrate’s January 18, 2013 order dismissing his petition seeking child support from respondent mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The mother met her burden of showing that she should be relieved of her support obligation, because the parties’ 18-year-old son was constructively emancipated (see Matter of Jurgielewicz v Johnston, 114 AD3d 945 [2d Dept 2014]; cf Schneider v Schneider, 116 AD2d 714 [2d Dept 1986]). The record shows that in the months before this proceeding was commenced, and throughout the following year, the son refused to speak with the mother without explanation. During the same period, the mother made efforts to maintain a relationship with him, calling him and sending letters and cards, but he would not respond. There is no evidence that it was the mother that caused the deterioration in the relationship (see Matter of Roe v Doe, 29 NY2d 188, 194 [1971]; Matter of Chamberlin v Chamberlin, 240 AD2d 908 [3d Dept 1997]; compare O’Sullivan v Katz, 81 AD3d 480 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, *413 J.), entered on or about April 19, 2013, which denied petitioner father’s objection to the Support Magistrate’s January 18, 2013 order dismissing his petition seeking child support from respondent mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The mother met her burden of showing that she should be relieved of her support obligation, because the parties’ 18-year-old son was constructively emancipated (see Matter of Jurgielewicz v Johnston, 114 AD3d 945 [2d Dept 2014]; cf Schneider v Schneider, 116 AD2d 714 [2d Dept 1986]). The record shows that in the months before this proceeding was commenced, and throughout the following year, the son refused to speak with the mother without explanation. During the same period, the mother made efforts to maintain a relationship with him, calling him and sending letters and cards, but he would not respond. There is no evidence that it was the mother that caused the deterioration in the relationship (see Matter of Roe v Doe, 29 NY2d 188, 194 [1971]; Matter of Chamberlin v Chamberlin, 240 AD2d 908 [3d Dept 1997]; compare O’Sullivan v Katz, 81 AD3d 480 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

Matter of Jose R. v. Yvette-Ortiz M., 123 A.D.3d 412, 999 N.Y.S.2d 1 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

123 A.D.3d 412 (Matter of Jose R. v. Yvette-Ortiz M.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related