Smith v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Smith

105 A.D.2d 1120, 482 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21217

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 105 A.D.2d 1120 (Smith v. Smith) 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

Smith v. Smith, 105 A.D.2d 1120, 482 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, and matter remitted to Onondaga County Family Court for a hearing, in accordance with the following memorandum: At this modification hearing, Family Court had a mandatory duty to enter a money judgment in favor of petitioner for the arrears of child support due her rather than awarding installment payments (Family Ct Act, § 460, subd 1). Since the court determined that the respondent was not willful in failing to pay arrears, interest was properly excluded in the order. Furthermore, the court should conduct a hearing to determine if petitioner’s application for counsel fees is warranted (Roscini v Roscini, 45 AD2d 254). We have examined the petitioner’s application for upward modification for child support and find no abuse of discretion in the court’s ruling. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Family Court, Buck, J. — support.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, and matter remitted to Onondaga County Family Court for a hearing, in accordance with the following memorandum: At this modification hearing, Family Court had a mandatory duty to enter a money judgment in favor of petitioner for the arrears of child support due her rather than awarding installment payments (Family Ct Act, § 460, subd 1). Since the court determined that the respondent was not willful in failing to pay arrears, interest was properly excluded in the order. Furthermore, the court should conduct a hearing to determine if petitioner’s application for counsel fees is warranted (Roscini v Roscini, 45 AD2d 254). We have examined the petitioner’s application for upward modification for child support and find no abuse of discretion in the court’s ruling. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Family Court, Buck, J. — support.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.2d 1120, 482 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-smith-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack