Michael N. G. v. Elsa R.

199 A.D.2d 81, 604 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11911
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 14, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 81 (Michael N. G. v. Elsa R.) 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
Michael N. G. v. Elsa R., 199 A.D.2d 81, 604 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11911 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Leah Marks, J.), entered on or about January 17, 1992, which, insofar as appealed from, denied petitioner father’s objections to an order of the same court (Francine Seiden, H.E.), entered on or about September 16, 1991, granting respondent mother’s request for an upward modification of child support, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 6, 1991, which denied petitioner’s motion to have the Justice recuse herself, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Hearing Examiner properly concluded that a change in the financial circumstances of the parties, specifically respondent’s substantial reduction and petitioner’s modest increase in earnings, warranted an increase in petitioner’s child support from $65 a week to $100 a week (see, Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132). Petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption that application of the guidelines set forth in the Child Support Standards Act (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [f] [1]-[10]) yielded the correct amount of support, and, to the extent petitioner argues that strict application of the guidelines will cause him financial hardship, we accord deference to the Hearing Examiner’s assessment of the parties’ credibility and the evidence presented (see, Matter of Maddox v Doty, 186 AD2d 135). We have considered petitioner’s other arguments, and we find them to be without merit (see, Stern v Stern, 59 AD2d 857). The court properly refused to recuse itself as there was no showing of bias or conflict of interest (Judiciary Law § 14). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Hall v. Pancho
2017 NY Slip Op 2648 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Burr v. Fellner
73 A.D.3d 1041 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Baker-Kelly v. Baker
23 A.D.3d 1096 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
North Guilford County v. Campbell
305 A.D.2d 686 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Keay v. Menda
210 A.D.2d 483 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
199 A.D.2d 81, 604 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-n-g-v-elsa-r-nyappdiv-1993.