O. v. M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O. v. M.

88 A.D.3d 797, 930 N.Y.2d 889

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in O. v. M.. Read the opinion of the Court — 67 A.D.3d 1018 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 11, 2011·Published

Opinion

The appellant’s arguments concerning the issues of the best interests of the child and equitable estoppel were raised by him, and determined by this Court, on a prior appeal (see Matter of O. v M., 67 AD3d 1018 [2009]). Under the circumstances, the appellant is barred from raising them again on this appeal (see Gorelik v Gorelik, 85 AD3d 856 [2011]).

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court had subject matter jurisdiction to issue an order directing him to pay child support, since no order had been previously issued [798]*798establishing such an obligation on the part of the appellant (see Matter of Clarke v Clarke, 68 AD3d 1203 [2009]). Dillon, J.E, Belen, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

The appellant’s arguments concerning the issues of the best interests of the child and equitable estoppel were raised by him, and determined by this Court, on a prior appeal (see Matter of O. v M., 67 AD3d 1018 [2009]). Under the circumstances, the appellant is barred from raising them again on this appeal (see Gorelik v Gorelik, 85 AD3d 856 [2011]).

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court had subject matter jurisdiction to issue an order directing him to pay child support, since no order had been previously issued [798]*798establishing such an obligation on the part of the appellant (see Matter of Clarke v Clarke, 68 AD3d 1203 [2009]). Dillon, J.E, Belen, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.

O. v. M., 88 A.D.3d 797, 930 N.Y.2d 889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

88 A.D.3d 797 (O. v. M.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related