Padilla v. Padilla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Padilla v. Padilla

308 A.D.2d 591, 765 N.Y.S.2d 520

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 308 A.D.2d 591 (Padilla v. Padilla) 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

Padilla v. Padilla, 308 A.D.2d 591, 765 N.Y.S.2d 520 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Dounias, J.), entered September 25, 2002, as denied his objections to an order of the same court (Buse, H.E.), entered July 19, 2002, which granted the mother’s motion to dismiss his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Family Court correctly determined that the father failed to allege a “substantial” and “unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances” (Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 213 [1977]; Praeger v Praeger, 162 AD2d 671, 673 [1990]) in his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation (see Beard v Beard, 300 AD2d 268 [2002]; Matter of Horan v Horan, 279 AD2d 577 [2001]; Epel v Epel, 139 AD2d 488 [1988]). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Crane, 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, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Dounias, J.), entered September 25, 2002, as denied his objections to an order of the same court (Buse, H.E.), entered July 19, 2002, which granted the mother’s motion to dismiss his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Family Court correctly determined that the father failed to allege a “substantial” and “unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances” (Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 213 [1977]; Praeger v Praeger, 162 AD2d 671, 673 [1990]) in his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation (see Beard v Beard, 300 AD2d 268 [2002]; Matter of Horan v Horan, 279 AD2d 577 [2001]; Epel v Epel, 139 AD2d 488 [1988]). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 591, 765 N.Y.S.2d 520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/padilla-v-padilla-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack