Taylor v. Brand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taylor v. Brand

228 A.D.2d 238, 643 N.Y.2d 996, 643 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6462

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

DecidedJune 11, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 228 A.D.2d 238 (Taylor v. Brand) 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

Taylor v. Brand, 228 A.D.2d 238, 643 N.Y.2d 996, 643 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

, There is no merit to respondent-appellant’s claim that his support obligation, as determined under the Child Support Standards Act (Family Ct Act § 413), is unjust, inappropriate, and based upon mathematical errors. In arriving at $1,668.63 a month, the court correctly determined the child’s reasonable needs, properly applied the formula set forth in the Child Support Standards Act, properly took into consideration the factors set forth in Family Court Act § 413 (1) (f) with respect to combined parental income over $80,000, and sufficiently articulated the reasons for his decision (see, Matter of Cassano v Cassano, 85 NY2d 649; Matter of Pry stay v Avildsen, 220 AD2d 337). We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

, There is no merit to respondent-appellant’s claim that his support obligation, as determined under the Child Support Standards Act (Family Ct Act § 413), is unjust, inappropriate, and based upon mathematical errors. In arriving at $1,668.63 a month, the court correctly determined the child’s reasonable needs, properly applied the formula set forth in the Child Support Standards Act, properly took into consideration the factors set forth in Family Court Act § 413 (1) (f) with respect to combined parental income over $80,000, and sufficiently articulated the reasons for his decision (see, Matter of Cassano v Cassano, 85 NY2d 649; Matter of Pry stay v Avildsen, 220 AD2d 337). We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 238, 643 N.Y.2d 996, 643 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-brand-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack