O'Neill v. Farley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Neill v. Farley

272 A.D.2d 475, 708 N.Y.S.2d 319, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5542

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

DecidedMay 15, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 475 (O'Neill v. Farley) 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

O'Neill v. Farley, 272 A.D.2d 475, 708 N.Y.S.2d 319, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5542 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Simeone, J.), entered June 1, 1998, which denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Rodriguez, H. E.), dated October 28, 1997, as directed him to pay child support in the amount of $48 per week.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Hearing Examiner providently exercised his discretion in imputing certain income to the appellant in calculating his basic child support obligation (see, Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5] [iv]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Simeone, J.), entered June 1, 1998, which denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Rodriguez, H. E.), dated October 28, 1997, as directed him to pay child support in the amount of $48 per week.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Hearing Examiner providently exercised his discretion in imputing certain income to the appellant in calculating his basic child support obligation (see, Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5] [iv]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 475, 708 N.Y.S.2d 319, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneill-v-farley-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack