Ouimet v. Ouimet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ouimet v. Ouimet

186 A.D.2d 1002, 590 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11538

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 1002 (Ouimet v. Ouimet) 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

Ouimet v. Ouimet, 186 A.D.2d 1002, 590 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11538 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly denied respondent’s objections to the findings and order of the Hearing Examiner. Respondent’s contention that his support obligation should be reduced because his yearly income had steadily declined is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is unpreserved for our review (see, Matter of Latrice R., 93 AD2d 838, lv denied 59 NY2d 604; Matter of Van Alstyne v David Q., 92 AD2d 971, 972). If we were to reach it, we would find that respondent’s support obligation was correctly calculated under the Child Support Standards Act (Family Ct Act § 413). The fact that the order of support may work some hardship on respondent does not compel the conclusion that it is unjust or inappropriate, especially given the disparity of income between respondent and petitioner (see, Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [f] [10]). (Appeal from Order of Oswego County Family Court, Roman, J. — Child Support.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Pine, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly denied respondent’s objections to the findings and order of the Hearing Examiner. Respondent’s contention that his support obligation should be reduced because his yearly income had steadily declined is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is unpreserved for our review (see, Matter of Latrice R., 93 AD2d 838, lv denied 59 NY2d 604; Matter of Van Alstyne v David Q., 92 AD2d 971, 972). If we were to reach it, we would find that respondent’s support obligation was correctly calculated under the Child Support Standards Act (Family Ct Act § 413). The fact that the order of support may work some hardship on respondent does not compel the conclusion that it is unjust or inappropriate, especially given the disparity of income between respondent and petitioner (see, Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [f] [10]). (Appeal from Order of Oswego County Family Court, Roman, J. — Child Support.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Pine, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 1002, 590 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ouimet-v-ouimet-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack