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

132 A.D.3d 404, 17 N.Y.S.3d 115
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 1, 2015
Docket15745
StatusPublished
Cited by239 cases

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

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

Related

Matter of A. R. v. M. R.
2025 NY Slip Op 02283 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Pratt v. Pratt
2017 NY Slip Op 7494 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Charlotte E. v. Alan P.
2016 NY Slip Op 8184 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Lewis
2016 NY Slip Op 33228(U) (Bronx Surrogate's Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 A.D.3d 404, 17 N.Y.S.3d 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-mary-p-v-joseph-tp-nyappdiv-2015.