Matter of Mary P. v. Joseph T.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Mary P. v. Joseph T.P.

132 A.D.3d 404, 17 N.Y.S.3d 115

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 1, 2015·No. 15745·Published·Cited by 239 cases

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), entered on or about March 10, 2014, which denied respondent’s objections to the order entered on or about January 7, 2014 (S.M. Paul Ryneski), denying his motion to vacate a modified support order, entered on or about June 1, 2004, as to arrears, and a January 2002 money judgment for arrears, and dismissed his petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court properly denied respondent’s objections to the support magistrate’s determination that there was no basis for vacatur of his child support arrears.

A child born during marriage is presumed to be the legitimate child of the marriage (see Domestic Relations Law § 24; Family Ct Act § 417; Matter of Findlay, 253 NY 1, 7 [1930]). Respondent acknowledged that he knew in December 1985, immediately after the child’s birth, that he was not the child’s biological father. However, he took no affirmative steps to rebut the presumption of legitimacy at any time prior to April 2006, when, relying on the divorce court’s finding that there were no children of the marriage, he sought to vacate the support order as to arrears and the money judgment for arrears. The law is well settled that child support arrears cannot be modified retroactively (see Matter of Dox v Tynon, 90 NY2d 166, 173-174 [1997]). “Under Family Court Act § 451, the court has no discre *405 tion to cancel, reduce or otherwise modify child support arrears accrued prior to the making of an application for such relief” (Matter of Zaid S. v Yolanda N.A.A., 24 AD3d 118 [1st Dept 2005]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz and Richter, 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, J.), entered on or about March 10, 2014, which denied respondent’s objections to the order entered on or about January 7, 2014 (S.M. Paul Ryneski), denying his motion to vacate a modified support order, entered on or about June 1, 2004, as to arrears, and a January 2002 money judgment for arrears, and dismissed his petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court properly denied respondent’s objections to the support magistrate’s determination that there was no basis for vacatur of his child support arrears.

A child born during marriage is presumed to be the legitimate child of the marriage (see Domestic Relations Law § 24; Family Ct Act § 417; Matter of Findlay, 253 NY 1, 7 [1930]). Respondent acknowledged that he knew in December 1985, immediately after the child’s birth, that he was not the child’s biological father. However, he took no affirmative steps to rebut the presumption of legitimacy at any time prior to April 2006, when, relying on the divorce court’s finding that there were no children of the marriage, he sought to vacate the support order as to arrears and the money judgment for arrears. The law is well settled that child support arrears cannot be modified retroactively (see Matter of Dox v Tynon, 90 NY2d 166, 173-174 [1997]). “Under Family Court Act § 451, the court has no discre *405 tion to cancel, reduce or otherwise modify child support arrears accrued prior to the making of an application for such relief” (Matter of Zaid S. v Yolanda N.A.A., 24 AD3d 118 [1st Dept 2005]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

Matter of Mary P. v. Joseph T.P., 132 A.D.3d 404, 17 N.Y.S.3d 115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

132 A.D.3d 404 (Matter of Mary P. v. Joseph T.P.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related