Slocum v. Robertson

217 A.D.2d 940, 631 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8358
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 14, 1995·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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).

217 A.D.2d 940 (Slocum v. Robertson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

NIAGARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL, SERVICES v. HUEBER, ROGER L.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011
Niagara County Department of Social Services ex rel. Kearns v. Hueber
89 A.D.3d 1440 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)