Rosenberger v. Cashman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenberger v. Cashman

301 A.D.2d 717, 752 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 29

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

DecidedJanuary 2, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 717 (Rosenberger v. Cashman) 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

Rosenberger v. Cashman, 301 A.D.2d 717, 752 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 29 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Ulster County (Mizel, J.), entered April 4, 2002, which, inter alia, granted petitioner’s applications, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, for an upward modification of child support.

Following a hearing, a Hearing Examiner ordered petitioner to pay a modest increase in his weekly child support obligation for the parties’ three daughters. On this appeal from Family Court’s affirmance thereof, petitioner, who is pro se, makes one essential argument, namely, that all judges in this state should be disqualified from presiding over child support cases. In petitioner’s view, a system-wide conflict of interest was created with the passage of federal legislation in 1998 reforming incentive payments to states for effective child support collection and enforcement. Because judges are compensated with state funds, petitioner’s argument goes, all judges have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of child support cases and thus should be disqualified. Charitably stated, this argument is unpersuasive. As no other issue has been specifically raised, and finding no abuse of discretion in the upward modification of child support in any event, we affirm.

Crew III, J.P., Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Ulster County (Mizel, J.), entered April 4, 2002, which, inter alia, granted petitioner’s applications, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, for an upward modification of child support.

Following a hearing, a Hearing Examiner ordered petitioner to pay a modest increase in his weekly child support obligation for the parties’ three daughters. On this appeal from Family Court’s affirmance thereof, petitioner, who is pro se, makes one essential argument, namely, that all judges in this state should be disqualified from presiding over child support cases. In petitioner’s view, a system-wide conflict of interest was created with the passage of federal legislation in 1998 reforming incentive payments to states for effective child support collection and enforcement. Because judges are compensated with state funds, petitioner’s argument goes, all judges have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of child support cases and thus should be disqualified. Charitably stated, this argument is unpersuasive. As no other issue has been specifically raised, and finding no abuse of discretion in the upward modification of child support in any event, we affirm.

Crew III, J.P., Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 717, 752 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenberger-v-cashman-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack