Matter of Schildwachter v. Schildwachter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Schildwachter v. Schildwachter

2016 NY Slip Op 8872, 145 A.D.3d 1017, 42 N.Y.S.3d 849

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

DecidedDecember 28, 2016

Docket2016-01748

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8872 (Matter of Schildwachter v. Schildwachter) 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 Schildwachter v. Schildwachter, 2016 NY Slip Op 8872, 145 A.D.3d 1017, 42 N.Y.S.3d 849 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Nilda Morales Horowitz, J.), dated December 28, 2015. The order denied the mother’s objections to an order of that court (Esther R. Furman, S.M.) dated July 22, 2015, which, after a hearing, granted the father’s enforcement petition and directed her to pay the father the sum of $5,140 through the Child Support Collection Unit.

Ordered that the order dated December 28, 2015, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In 2010 the parties executed a stipulation that was incorporated but not merged into their judgment of divorce, which required them to share the costs of certain add-on expenses for the subject children. In 2015 the father filed an enforcement petition alleging that the mother had failed to pay her share of the add-on expenses. After a hearing, the Support Magistrate granted the enforcement petition and directed the mother to pay the father the sum of $5,140 through the Child Support Collection Unit. In the order appealed from, the Family Court denied the mother’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order granting the father’s petition.

“In reviewing a determination of the Family Court, great deference should be given to the determination of the Support Magistrate, who was in the best position to hear and evaluate the evidence, as well as the credibility of the witnesses” (Matter of VanBeers v VanBeers, 129AD3d 1095, 1095 [2015]). Here, the Support Magistrate’s finding that the mother failed to pay the father her share of the add-on expenses, as required by the

*1018 parties’ stipulation, was based upon an assessment of the parties’ credibility and is supported by the record (see Klein v Klein, 134 AD3d 1066, 1068 [2015]; Matter of Brandt v Peirce, 132 AD3d 665, 667 [2015]; Matter of Bokor v Markel, 104 AD3d 683 [2013]; Matter of Strella v Ferro, 42 AD3d 544, 545 [2007]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the mother’s

objections to the Support Magistrate’s order.

Rivera, J.P., Austin, Cohen and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Nilda Morales Horowitz, J.), dated December 28, 2015. The order denied the mother’s objections to an order of that court (Esther R. Furman, S.M.) dated July 22, 2015, which, after a hearing, granted the father’s enforcement petition and directed her to pay the father the sum of $5,140 through the Child Support Collection Unit.

Ordered that the order dated December 28, 2015, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In 2010 the parties executed a stipulation that was incorporated but not merged into their judgment of divorce, which required them to share the costs of certain add-on expenses for the subject children. In 2015 the father filed an enforcement petition alleging that the mother had failed to pay her share of the add-on expenses. After a hearing, the Support Magistrate granted the enforcement petition and directed the mother to pay the father the sum of $5,140 through the Child Support Collection Unit. In the order appealed from, the Family Court denied the mother’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order granting the father’s petition.

“In reviewing a determination of the Family Court, great deference should be given to the determination of the Support Magistrate, who was in the best position to hear and evaluate the evidence, as well as the credibility of the witnesses” (Matter of VanBeers v VanBeers, 129AD3d 1095, 1095 [2015]). Here, the Support Magistrate’s finding that the mother failed to pay the father her share of the add-on expenses, as required by the

*1018 parties’ stipulation, was based upon an assessment of the parties’ credibility and is supported by the record (see Klein v Klein, 134 AD3d 1066, 1068 [2015]; Matter of Brandt v Peirce, 132 AD3d 665, 667 [2015]; Matter of Bokor v Markel, 104 AD3d 683 [2013]; Matter of Strella v Ferro, 42 AD3d 544, 545 [2007]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the mother’s

objections to the Support Magistrate’s order.

Rivera, J.P., Austin, Cohen and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 8872, 145 A.D.3d 1017, 42 N.Y.S.3d 849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-schildwachter-v-schildwachter-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack