Shamieka B. v. Lishomwa H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shamieka B. v. Lishomwa H.

92 A.D.3d 462, 938 N.Y.2d 65

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.3d 462 (Shamieka B. v. Lishomwa H.) 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

Shamieka B. v. Lishomwa H., 92 A.D.3d 462, 938 N.Y.2d 65 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[463]*463The court properly determined that the father’s failure to comply with the child support order from March 28, 2008 through August 21, 2008 was willful since he admitted being employed during this time period, and that he paid other financial obligations (see Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63, 68-70 [1995]).

There was no evidence that the father was prejudiced by the inclusion of arrears from an earlier time period in that the petition advised that the petitioner may amend to include additional arrears, and pleadings are to be liberally construed (CPLR 3026).

In our view, the father demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances as to his child support obligation beginning in July 2009, when his medical records reflect debilitating symptoms related to commencement of chemotherapy (see Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 213 [1977]). Concur — Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

[463]*463The court properly determined that the father’s failure to comply with the child support order from March 28, 2008 through August 21, 2008 was willful since he admitted being employed during this time period, and that he paid other financial obligations (see Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63, 68-70 [1995]).

There was no evidence that the father was prejudiced by the inclusion of arrears from an earlier time period in that the petition advised that the petitioner may amend to include additional arrears, and pleadings are to be liberally construed (CPLR 3026).

In our view, the father demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances as to his child support obligation beginning in July 2009, when his medical records reflect debilitating symptoms related to commencement of chemotherapy (see Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 213 [1977]). Concur — Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 462, 938 N.Y.2d 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shamieka-b-v-lishomwa-h-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack