Upcraft v. Tesoriero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Upcraft v. Tesoriero

234 A.D.2d 976, 652 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13727

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 234 A.D.2d 976 (Upcraft v. Tesoriero) 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

Upcraft v. Tesoriero, 234 A.D.2d 976, 652 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13727 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Amended order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Contrary to petitioner’s contention, Family Court set forth in the amended order its reasons for finding that respondent’s pro rata share of the basic child support obligation would be unjust (see, Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [g]; see generally, Matter of Steuben County Dept. of Social Servs. [Padgett] v James, 171 AD2d 1023). The court also properly set forth the factors it considered in making that determination, as well as the amount of each party’s pro rata share of the basic child support obligation (see, Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [f], [g]). (Appeal from Amended Order of Oswego County Family Court, Elliott, J.—Support.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Wesley, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

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

—Amended order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Contrary to petitioner’s contention, Family Court set forth in the amended order its reasons for finding that respondent’s pro rata share of the basic child support obligation would be unjust (see, Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [g]; see generally, Matter of Steuben County Dept. of Social Servs. [Padgett] v James, 171 AD2d 1023). The court also properly set forth the factors it considered in making that determination, as well as the amount of each party’s pro rata share of the basic child support obligation (see, Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [f], [g]). (Appeal from Amended Order of Oswego County Family Court, Elliott, J.—Support.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Wesley, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 976, 652 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/upcraft-v-tesoriero-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack