Shanon v. Patterson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shanon v. Patterson

70 A.D.3d 809, 892 N.Y.S.2d 914

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 70 A.D.3d 809 (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, 70 A.D.3d 809, 892 N.Y.S.2d 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by 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 (Fitzmaurice, J.), dated November 17, 2008, as denied that branch of his cross motion which was for the release of certain funds being held for the purpose of securing his child support obligation.

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

The Supreme Court has the discretion to direct an undertaking to insure payment of child support obligations (see Krinsky v Krinsky, 208 AD2d 601 [1994]; Labow v Labow, 154 AD2d 90 [1990]; Rainone v Rainone, 118 AD2d 766, 767 [1986]). In light of the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for the release of certain funds being held for the purpose of securing his child support obligation.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Sgroi, 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 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 (Fitzmaurice, J.), dated November 17, 2008, as denied that branch of his cross motion which was for the release of certain funds being held for the purpose of securing his child support obligation.

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

The Supreme Court has the discretion to direct an undertaking to insure payment of child support obligations (see Krinsky v Krinsky, 208 AD2d 601 [1994]; Labow v Labow, 154 AD2d 90 [1990]; Rainone v Rainone, 118 AD2d 766, 767 [1986]). In light of the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for the release of certain funds being held for the purpose of securing his child support obligation.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.3d 809, 892 N.Y.S.2d 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shanon-v-patterson-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack