Shillingford v. Dielinger
101 A.D.3d 889, 954 N.Y.2d 907
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 12, 2012·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the mother’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s determination that she failed to establish a substantial change in circumstances warranting an upward modification of child support (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Matter of Grade v Donovan, 84 AD3d 1375, 1376 [2011]; Matter of Simmons v Simmons, 71 AD3d 775, 776 [2010]; Matter of Heyward v Goldman, 23 AD3d 468, 469 [2005]). Mastro, J.P., Lott, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Shillingford v. Dielinger, 101 A.D.3d 889, 954 N.Y.2d 907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).
101 A.D.3d 889 (Shillingford v. Dielinger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Matter of Redd v. Burrell
2016 NY Slip Op 8365 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Lally v. Aebly
128 A.D.3d 699 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)