Mele-Dallio v. Mele

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mele-Dallio v. Mele

247 A.D.2d 541, 668 N.Y.S.2d 477, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1491

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 541 (Mele-Dallio v. Mele) 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

Mele-Dallio v. Mele, 247 A.D.2d 541, 668 N.Y.S.2d 477, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1491 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), entered January 10, 1997, which denied her objections to an order of the same court (Mandell, H.E.), entered August 1, 1996, which denied, in part, her petition for an upward modification of child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in limiting the upward modification of child support. The award properly took into consideration the fact that the respondent father is paying 50% of the college costs for the parties’ eldest child (see, Justino v Justino, 238 AD2d 549) and his obligation to support a child from a subsequent marriage (see, Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [c] [2], [3]; [f] [8]).

Thompson, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), entered January 10, 1997, which denied her objections to an order of the same court (Mandell, H.E.), entered August 1, 1996, which denied, in part, her petition for an upward modification of child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in limiting the upward modification of child support. The award properly took into consideration the fact that the respondent father is paying 50% of the college costs for the parties’ eldest child (see, Justino v Justino, 238 AD2d 549) and his obligation to support a child from a subsequent marriage (see, Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [c] [2], [3]; [f] [8]).

Thompson, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 541, 668 N.Y.S.2d 477, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mele-dallio-v-mele-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack