Sienkwicz v. Bifulco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sienkwicz v. Bifulco

60 A.D.3d 1035, 875 N.Y.S.2d 797

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

DecidedMarch 31, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.3d 1035 (Sienkwicz v. Bifulco) 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

Sienkwicz v. Bifulco, 60 A.D.3d 1035, 875 N.Y.S.2d 797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered May 6, 2004, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Blydenburgh, J.), dated February 13, 2007, as granted that branch of her motion which was for downward modification of her child support obligation only to the extent of reducing her monthly child support obligation from the sum of $833.50 to the sum of $566.78.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, while she established that she was entitled to a reduction in her child support obligation based on the relocation of the parties’ older son out of the plaintiff’s home (see Riseley v Riseley, 208 AD2d 132, 134 [1995]), she failed to demonstrate that a reduction greater than that awarded by the court was warranted under the circumstances of this case.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Chambers, 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 6, 2004, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Blydenburgh, J.), dated February 13, 2007, as granted that branch of her motion which was for downward modification of her child support obligation only to the extent of reducing her monthly child support obligation from the sum of $833.50 to the sum of $566.78.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, while she established that she was entitled to a reduction in her child support obligation based on the relocation of the parties’ older son out of the plaintiff’s home (see Riseley v Riseley, 208 AD2d 132, 134 [1995]), she failed to demonstrate that a reduction greater than that awarded by the court was warranted under the circumstances of this case.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 1035, 875 N.Y.S.2d 797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sienkwicz-v-bifulco-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack