Velazquez v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Velazquez v. State

7 A.D.3d 449, 776 N.Y.S.2d 804, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7200

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

DecidedMay 25, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.3d 449 (Velazquez v. State) 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

Velazquez v. State, 7 A.D.3d 449, 776 N.Y.S.2d 804, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7200 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered March 11, 2003, which ordered that a proposed administrative directive and notices clarify there would be no enforcement of any class member’s pre-1994 child support orders, and specify that receipt of public assistance or Supplemental Security Income constitutes relevant, significant but rebuttable evidence of indigency and inability to pay child support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The permanent injunction against enforcement of the pre1994 orders was consistent with our prior affirmance of a 1995 order (226 AD2d 141 [1996], appeal dismissed 88 NY2d 963 [1996], 90 NY2d 1007 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 808 [1998]). The meaning and import of the receipt of means-tested public assistance as rebuttable evidence of indigency and the inability of a noncustodial parent to provide support (see Matter of Rose v Moody, 83 NY2d 65, 70 [1993], cert denied sub nom. Attorney Gen. of N.Y. v Moody, 511 US 1084 [1994]) require some form of public notice.

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered March 11, 2003, which ordered that a proposed administrative directive and notices clarify there would be no enforcement of any class member’s pre-1994 child support orders, and specify that receipt of public assistance or Supplemental Security Income constitutes relevant, significant but rebuttable evidence of indigency and inability to pay child support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The permanent injunction against enforcement of the pre1994 orders was consistent with our prior affirmance of a 1995 order (226 AD2d 141 [1996], appeal dismissed 88 NY2d 963 [1996], 90 NY2d 1007 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 808 [1998]). The meaning and import of the receipt of means-tested public assistance as rebuttable evidence of indigency and the inability of a noncustodial parent to provide support (see Matter of Rose v Moody, 83 NY2d 65, 70 [1993], cert denied sub nom. Attorney Gen. of N.Y. v Moody, 511 US 1084 [1994]) require some form of public notice.

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 449, 776 N.Y.S.2d 804, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/velazquez-v-state-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack