Risco v. Risco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Risco v. Risco

36 A.D.3d 681, 826 N.Y.S.2d 570

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 36 A.D.3d 681 (Risco v. Risco) 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

Risco v. Risco, 36 A.D.3d 681, 826 N.Y.S.2d 570 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[682]*682In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated October 27, 2005, as included the proceeds received by the defendant from the sale of real property in determining his income for purposes of calculating child support.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court correctly included the proceeds received by the defendant from the sale of real property in determining his income for purposes of calculating child support pursuant to the Child Support Standards Act (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [b] [5] [i], [ii]; McFarland v McFarland, 221 AD2d 983, 984 [1995]; see also Matter of Mitchell v Mitchell, 264 AD2d 535, 539 [1999]). Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Lunn and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

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

[682]*682In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated October 27, 2005, as included the proceeds received by the defendant from the sale of real property in determining his income for purposes of calculating child support.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court correctly included the proceeds received by the defendant from the sale of real property in determining his income for purposes of calculating child support pursuant to the Child Support Standards Act (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [b] [5] [i], [ii]; McFarland v McFarland, 221 AD2d 983, 984 [1995]; see also Matter of Mitchell v Mitchell, 264 AD2d 535, 539 [1999]). Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Lunn and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.D.3d 681, 826 N.Y.S.2d 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/risco-v-risco-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack