Nancy C. v. Roman U.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nancy C. v. Roman U.

222 A.D.2d 240, 635 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12702

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 240 (Nancy C. v. Roman U.) 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

Nancy C. v. Roman U., 222 A.D.2d 240, 635 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12702 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Leah Marks, J.), entered on or about September 24, 1993, which, inter alia, denied respondent’s objection to the Hearing Examiner’s order denying his application for a downward modification of child support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s failure to appear before the Hearing Examiner made inquiry into his financial means impossible, and justified [241]*241a support order based on the mother’s testimony as to the child’s needs (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [k]; § 545). Respondent’s subsequent failure to substantiate his expenses and document his income and assets justified adherence to the support order that was granted on his default. We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Leah Marks, J.), entered on or about September 24, 1993, which, inter alia, denied respondent’s objection to the Hearing Examiner’s order denying his application for a downward modification of child support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s failure to appear before the Hearing Examiner made inquiry into his financial means impossible, and justified [241]*241a support order based on the mother’s testimony as to the child’s needs (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [k]; § 545). Respondent’s subsequent failure to substantiate his expenses and document his income and assets justified adherence to the support order that was granted on his default. We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 240, 635 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nancy-c-v-roman-u-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack