Matter of Kenneth M. v. Catherine T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Kenneth M. v. Catherine T.

2017 NY Slip Op 7190, 154 A.D.3d 503, 61 N.Y.S.3d 501

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

DecidedOctober 12, 2017

Docket4664 4663 4662 4661

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7190 (Matter of Kenneth M. v. Catherine T.) 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 Kenneth M. v. Catherine T., 2017 NY Slip Op 7190, 154 A.D.3d 503, 61 N.Y.S.3d 501 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Karen I. Lupuloff, J.), entered on or about June 30, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied petitioner’s pro se objections to an order of support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to show a substantial change in circumstances to warrant a downward modification of his child support obligation. Petitioner’s income slightly increased between entry of the support order and the petition, and he did not show that his expenses had significantly increased during that period (see Bores v Bores, 134 AD3d 527, 528 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur — Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Webber and Oing, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Karen I. Lupuloff, J.), entered on or about June 30, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied petitioner’s pro se objections to an order of support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to show a substantial change in circumstances to warrant a downward modification of his child support obligation. Petitioner’s income slightly increased between entry of the support order and the petition, and he did not show that his expenses had significantly increased during that period (see Bores v Bores, 134 AD3d 527, 528 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur — Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Webber and Oing, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 7190, 154 A.D.3d 503, 61 N.Y.S.3d 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-kenneth-m-v-catherine-t-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack