Vasquez v. Lutz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vasquez v. Lutz

202 A.D.2d 1066, 612 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3559

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 1066 (Vasquez v. Lutz) 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

Vasquez v. Lutz, 202 A.D.2d 1066, 612 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3559 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Because the Department of Social Services (DSS) failed to establish its entitlement to arrearages, we modify the order of Family Court to delete the grant of arrearages to DSS and otherwise affirm. DSS argues that the arrearages accumulated under prior orders of Family Court, but it failed to identify those orders at the hearing, nor are those orders in the record that was submitted for our review. We cannot agree with the assertion of DSS that the order appealed from was issued on consent. Because petitioner in his brief does not challenge that portion of the order awarding arrearages to Nancy Lutz, also known as Messina, that portion of Family Court’s order is affirmed. (Appeal from Order of Nassau County Family Court, Balkin, J. — Child Support.) Present — Green, J. P., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Because the Department of Social Services (DSS) failed to establish its entitlement to arrearages, we modify the order of Family Court to delete the grant of arrearages to DSS and otherwise affirm. DSS argues that the arrearages accumulated under prior orders of Family Court, but it failed to identify those orders at the hearing, nor are those orders in the record that was submitted for our review. We cannot agree with the assertion of DSS that the order appealed from was issued on consent. Because petitioner in his brief does not challenge that portion of the order awarding arrearages to Nancy Lutz, also known as Messina, that portion of Family Court’s order is affirmed. (Appeal from Order of Nassau County Family Court, Balkin, J. — Child Support.) Present — Green, J. P., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 1066, 612 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vasquez-v-lutz-nyappdiv-1994.