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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 10, 2005·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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.

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

Pincite

23 A.D.3d 215 (Saladin v. Vicari) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related