Shanon v. Patterson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shanon v. Patterson

14 A.D.3d 604, 787 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 516

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 14 A.D.3d 604 (Shanon v. Patterson) 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

Shanon v. Patterson, 14 A.D.3d 604, 787 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 516 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment entered May 5, 2003, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorsa, J), dated June 4, 2003, as denied his cross motion to vacate the parties’ stipulation and for downward modification of his child support obligation and granted the plaintiffs motion to enforce the terms of the stipulation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court erred in determining that the defendant could challenge the stipulation of settlement before the entry of a judgment of divorce only by commencing a plenary action (see Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51, 56 [1979]; Cruciata v Cruciata, 10 AD3d 349 [2004]; Bailey v Assam, 269 AD2d 344 [2000]; Arguelles v Arguelles, 251 AD2d 611 [1998]; Zeppelin v Zeppelin, 245 AD2d 504 [1997]; cf. Spataro v Spataro, 268 AD2d 467 [2000]; Riley v Riley, 179 AD2d 750 [1992]; Lambert v Lambert, 142 AD2d 557 [1988]).

Nevertheless, the defendant failed to establish his entitlement to a downward modification of his support obligation (see Matter of Hanlon v Hanlon, 303 AD2d 505 [2003]; Beard v Beard, 300 AD2d 268 [2002]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment entered May 5, 2003, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorsa, J), dated June 4, 2003, as denied his cross motion to vacate the parties’ stipulation and for downward modification of his child support obligation and granted the plaintiffs motion to enforce the terms of the stipulation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court erred in determining that the defendant could challenge the stipulation of settlement before the entry of a judgment of divorce only by commencing a plenary action (see Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51, 56 [1979]; Cruciata v Cruciata, 10 AD3d 349 [2004]; Bailey v Assam, 269 AD2d 344 [2000]; Arguelles v Arguelles, 251 AD2d 611 [1998]; Zeppelin v Zeppelin, 245 AD2d 504 [1997]; cf. Spataro v Spataro, 268 AD2d 467 [2000]; Riley v Riley, 179 AD2d 750 [1992]; Lambert v Lambert, 142 AD2d 557 [1988]).

Nevertheless, the defendant failed to establish his entitlement to a downward modification of his support obligation (see Matter of Hanlon v Hanlon, 303 AD2d 505 [2003]; Beard v Beard, 300 AD2d 268 [2002]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.3d 604, 787 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shanon-v-patterson-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack