Yeackel v. Lindstead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yeackel v. Lindstead

67 A.D.2d 755, 412 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10398

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

DecidedJanuary 4, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 67 A.D.2d 755 (Yeackel v. Lindstead) 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

Yeackel v. Lindstead, 67 A.D.2d 755, 412 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10398 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Family Court of Saratoga County, entered March 8, 1978, which granted petitioner’s motion for an increase in support payments. Petitioner sought additional child support of $20 for a child who had formerly resided with appellant and was supported by him pursuant to a written stipulation entered into between the parties and which child is now residing with the petitioner. On appeal it is contended that the court erred in failing to consider appellant’s ability to pay along with the mother’s change in circumstances. We find no merit in this contention. Support provisions of an agreement will normally not be disturbed. To justify an increase beyond what is specified in a separation agreement there must be shown unforeseen change in circumstances and a concomitant showing of need (Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 213). The record supports such a finding. The increased support reflects a consideration of the respective financial circumstances of the parties as well as the needs of the child. Order affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Staley, Jr., Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal from an order of Family Court of Saratoga County, entered March 8, 1978, which granted petitioner’s motion for an increase in support payments. Petitioner sought additional child support of $20 for a child who had formerly resided with appellant and was supported by him pursuant to a written stipulation entered into between the parties and which child is now residing with the petitioner. On appeal it is contended that the court erred in failing to consider appellant’s ability to pay along with the mother’s change in circumstances. We find no merit in this contention. Support provisions of an agreement will normally not be disturbed. To justify an increase beyond what is specified in a separation agreement there must be shown unforeseen change in circumstances and a concomitant showing of need (Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 213). The record supports such a finding. The increased support reflects a consideration of the respective financial circumstances of the parties as well as the needs of the child. Order affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Staley, Jr., Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 755, 412 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yeackel-v-lindstead-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack