Perna v. Perna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perna v. Perna

12 A.D.3d 448, 783 N.Y.S.2d 820, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13318

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

DecidedNovember 8, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 448 (Perna v. Perna) 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

Perna v. Perna, 12 A.D.3d 448, 783 N.Y.S.2d 820, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13318 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

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 (Dounias, J.), entered December 5, 2003, which denied his objection to an order of the same court (Fields-Ferraro, S.M.), entered October 24, 2003, which, after a hearing, inter alia, dismissed his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation on the ground of res judicata.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The father’s application for a downward modification of his child support obligation was barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see Ciancimino v Town of E. Hampton, 266 AD2d 331, 332 [1999]). In any event, the father failed to demonstrate a substantial, unanticipated, and unreasonable change of circumstances (see Beard v Beard, 300 AD2d 268 [2002]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father’s objection to the order entered October 24, 2003. H. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Cozier and Spolzino, 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 (Dounias, J.), entered December 5, 2003, which denied his objection to an order of the same court (Fields-Ferraro, S.M.), entered October 24, 2003, which, after a hearing, inter alia, dismissed his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation on the ground of res judicata.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The father’s application for a downward modification of his child support obligation was barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see Ciancimino v Town of E. Hampton, 266 AD2d 331, 332 [1999]). In any event, the father failed to demonstrate a substantial, unanticipated, and unreasonable change of circumstances (see Beard v Beard, 300 AD2d 268 [2002]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father’s objection to the order entered October 24, 2003. H. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Cozier and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 448, 783 N.Y.S.2d 820, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perna-v-perna-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack