Slocum v. Robertson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Slocum v. Robertson

217 A.D.2d 940, 631 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8358

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 217 A.D.2d 940 (Slocum v. Robertson) 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

Slocum v. Robertson, 217 A.D.2d 940, 631 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously [941]*941affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly denied respondent’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order. Respondent failed to demonstrate an unforeseen substantial change in circumstances warranting a downward modification of child support (see, Stock v Stock, 202 AD2d 914, 915). Further, respondent’s child support obligation was properly determined on a per-household rather than a per-child basis (see, Buck v Buck, 195 AD2d 818; Matter of Niagara County Dept. of Social Servs. [Maxwell] v Cunningham, 188 AD2d 1039; Matter of Griffin v Janik, 185 AD2d 635). (Appeal from Order of Allegany County Family Court, Sprague, J.—Child Support.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously [941]*941affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly denied respondent’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order. Respondent failed to demonstrate an unforeseen substantial change in circumstances warranting a downward modification of child support (see, Stock v Stock, 202 AD2d 914, 915). Further, respondent’s child support obligation was properly determined on a per-household rather than a per-child basis (see, Buck v Buck, 195 AD2d 818; Matter of Niagara County Dept. of Social Servs. [Maxwell] v Cunningham, 188 AD2d 1039; Matter of Griffin v Janik, 185 AD2d 635). (Appeal from Order of Allegany County Family Court, Sprague, J.—Child Support.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 A.D.2d 940, 631 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slocum-v-robertson-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack