Thomas v. Giddins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas v. Giddins

295 A.D.2d 523, 744 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6404

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

DecidedJune 17, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 523 (Thomas v. Giddins) 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

Thomas v. Giddins, 295 A.D.2d 523, 744 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father [524]*524appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Dounias, J.), entered December 28, 2001, which denied his objections to an order of the same court, entered October 24, 2001 (Fields-Ferraro, H.E.), denying, without a hearing, his application for downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The father failed to establish a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant downward modification of his child support obligation (see Matter of Kotlyar v Burshtein, 268 AD2d 433). The father’s remaining contentions are not properly before this Court (see Matter of Werner v Werner, 130 AD2d 754). Santucci, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father [524]*524appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Dounias, J.), entered December 28, 2001, which denied his objections to an order of the same court, entered October 24, 2001 (Fields-Ferraro, H.E.), denying, without a hearing, his application for downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The father failed to establish a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant downward modification of his child support obligation (see Matter of Kotlyar v Burshtein, 268 AD2d 433). The father’s remaining contentions are not properly before this Court (see Matter of Werner v Werner, 130 AD2d 754). Santucci, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 523, 744 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-giddins-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack