Palmieri v. LaConti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Palmieri v. LaConti

282 A.D.2d 538, 722 N.Y.S.2d 768, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3501

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

DecidedApril 9, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 538 (Palmieri v. LaConti) 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

Palmieri v. LaConti, 282 A.D.2d 538, 722 N.Y.S.2d 768, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3501 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (McElligott, J.), entered January 19, 2000, which denied her objections to an order of the same court (Lynaugh, H.E.), entered July 7, 1999, which, after a hearing, inter alia, [539]*539granted the respondent’s motion for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Hearing Examiner providently exercised her discretion in determining that the respondent was entitled to a downward modification of his child support obligation (see, Adinolfi v Adinolfi, 242 AD2d 311; Stempler v Stempler, 200 AD2d 733; Matter of King v King, 193 AD2d 800). The evidence demonstrated an unanticipated and substantial change in the respondent’s circumstances after the determination of the child support obligation in 1996.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Feuerstein, 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 petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (McElligott, J.), entered January 19, 2000, which denied her objections to an order of the same court (Lynaugh, H.E.), entered July 7, 1999, which, after a hearing, inter alia, [539]*539granted the respondent’s motion for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Hearing Examiner providently exercised her discretion in determining that the respondent was entitled to a downward modification of his child support obligation (see, Adinolfi v Adinolfi, 242 AD2d 311; Stempler v Stempler, 200 AD2d 733; Matter of King v King, 193 AD2d 800). The evidence demonstrated an unanticipated and substantial change in the respondent’s circumstances after the determination of the child support obligation in 1996.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 538, 722 N.Y.S.2d 768, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmieri-v-laconti-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack