Romano v. Romano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Romano v. Romano

201 A.D.2d 403, 607 N.Y.S.2d 660

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 403 (Romano v. Romano) 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

Romano v. Romano, 201 A.D.2d 403, 607 N.Y.S.2d 660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Nassau County (Pauline C. Balkin, J.), entered May 11, 1992, denying respondent’s objections to a Hearing Officer’s dismissal with prejudice of respondent’s petition for modification of support obligations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s complaint that the Hearing Examiner "did not [404]*404give any credence” to the Child Support Standards Act (Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b]) is unavailing since the present action for child support was commenced and resolved before the effective date of that law (September 15, 1989) (see, Pullman v Pullman, 176 AD2d 113, 115). In any event, the record indicates that respondent failed to establish any change in financial circumstances to warrant a modification of his support obligations. An affidavit submitted by a receiver stated that all equitable distribution payment arrears had been met and that respondent henceforth would receive a monthly income from the sale of his business that exceeded the amount received as of the date of the last order issued by the Family Court.

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Asch and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Nassau County (Pauline C. Balkin, J.), entered May 11, 1992, denying respondent’s objections to a Hearing Officer’s dismissal with prejudice of respondent’s petition for modification of support obligations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s complaint that the Hearing Examiner "did not [404]*404give any credence” to the Child Support Standards Act (Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b]) is unavailing since the present action for child support was commenced and resolved before the effective date of that law (September 15, 1989) (see, Pullman v Pullman, 176 AD2d 113, 115). In any event, the record indicates that respondent failed to establish any change in financial circumstances to warrant a modification of his support obligations. An affidavit submitted by a receiver stated that all equitable distribution payment arrears had been met and that respondent henceforth would receive a monthly income from the sale of his business that exceeded the amount received as of the date of the last order issued by the Family Court.

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 403, 607 N.Y.S.2d 660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romano-v-romano-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack