Saladin v. Vicari

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Saladin v. Vicari

23 A.D.3d 215, 805 N.Y.S.2d 6

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

DecidedNovember 10, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 23 A.D.3d 215 (Saladin v. Vicari) 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

Saladin v. Vicari, 23 A.D.3d 215, 805 N.Y.S.2d 6 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about July 1, 2004, which denied respondent’s objections to an order of the Support Magistrate, entered on or about April 28, 2004, fixing respondent’s child support obligations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s repeated failure to provide financial disclosure as directed warranted an order of support based on the child’s needs or standard of living, whichever is greater (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [k]).

Both respondent and his counsel were granted repeated adjournments, and were apprised that there would be no further adjournments of the final hearing date. There is, accordingly, no merit to the contention that respondent and his counsel were not afforded a reasonable opportunity to appear and present evidence (cf. Matter of Lewis v Crosson, 53 AD2d 1029 [216]*216[1976]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about July 1, 2004, which denied respondent’s objections to an order of the Support Magistrate, entered on or about April 28, 2004, fixing respondent’s child support obligations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s repeated failure to provide financial disclosure as directed warranted an order of support based on the child’s needs or standard of living, whichever is greater (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [k]).

Both respondent and his counsel were granted repeated adjournments, and were apprised that there would be no further adjournments of the final hearing date. There is, accordingly, no merit to the contention that respondent and his counsel were not afforded a reasonable opportunity to appear and present evidence (cf. Matter of Lewis v Crosson, 53 AD2d 1029 [216]*216[1976]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 215, 805 N.Y.S.2d 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saladin-v-vicari-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack