Panzarella v. Panzarella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Panzarella v. Panzarella

106 A.D.3d 1527, 964 N.Y.S.2d 448

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

DecidedMay 3, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.D.3d 1527 (Panzarella v. Panzarella) 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

Panzarella v. Panzarella, 106 A.D.3d 1527, 964 N.Y.S.2d 448 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered June 12, 2012. The order granted the cross motion of plaintiff to vacate the provisions of the parties’ Stipulation of Settlement providing for child support.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff’s cross motion seeking to vacate the provisions of the parties’ Stipulation of Settlement (stipulation) concerning plaintiff’s child support obligations on the ground that the stipulation failed to comply with Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (h). The stipulation “failed to include recitals stating that the parties were aware that following the [Child Support Standards Act] guidelines would result in the presumptively correct amount of support; . . . failed to set forth the presumptively correct amount of support that would have been fixed pursuant to the guidelines; and . . . failed to articulate the reason the parties chose to deviate from the guidelines. Consequently, [the stipulation] was invalid and unenforceable” (Warnecke v Warnecke, 12 AD3d 502, 503-504 [2004]; see Bushlow v Bushlow, 89 AD3d 663, 664 [2011]; Jefferson v Jefferson, 21 AD3d 879, 880-881 [2005]). Present—Scudder, EJ., Centra, Garni, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered June 12, 2012. The order granted the cross motion of plaintiff to vacate the provisions of the parties’ Stipulation of Settlement providing for child support.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff’s cross motion seeking to vacate the provisions of the parties’ Stipulation of Settlement (stipulation) concerning plaintiff’s child support obligations on the ground that the stipulation failed to comply with Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (h). The stipulation “failed to include recitals stating that the parties were aware that following the [Child Support Standards Act] guidelines would result in the presumptively correct amount of support; . . . failed to set forth the presumptively correct amount of support that would have been fixed pursuant to the guidelines; and . . . failed to articulate the reason the parties chose to deviate from the guidelines. Consequently, [the stipulation] was invalid and unenforceable” (Warnecke v Warnecke, 12 AD3d 502, 503-504 [2004]; see Bushlow v Bushlow, 89 AD3d 663, 664 [2011]; Jefferson v Jefferson, 21 AD3d 879, 880-881 [2005]). Present—Scudder, EJ., Centra, Garni, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.3d 1527, 964 N.Y.S.2d 448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/panzarella-v-panzarella-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack