Yeager v. Yeager

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yeager v. Yeager

266 A.D.2d 223, 697 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11123

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 223 (Yeager v. Yeager) 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

Yeager v. Yeager, 266 A.D.2d 223, 697 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11123 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered June 26, 1997, which, upon denying his objections to two orders of the same court (Mrsich, H.E.), both dated January 3, 1997, inter alia, denying his petition for downward modification, found him in willful violation of a prior order of support dated September 10, 1991, assessed child support arrears in the sum of $13,084, and directed him to pay $100 a week in child support.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts, by deleting the provisions thereof which denied the appellant’s objections to those portions of the Hearing Examiner’s orders which directed him to pay the sum of $100 per week in child support, and substituting therefor a provision directing the appellant to pay child support in the decreased sum of $33.33 per week, effective October 2, 1996; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, the orders dated January 3, 1997, are modified accordingly, and the matter is remitted to [224]*224the Family Court, Westchester County, to determine the amount of any credit due the appellant and to apply that credit to any arrears he still owes.

The appellant father established a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a downward modification of child support (see, Family Ct Act § 461 [b] [ii]; Dowd v Dowd, 178 AD2d 330). Thus, as of October 2, 1996, the date of his petition, the support payments should be reduced to the extent indicated (see, Matter of Dox v Tynon, 90 NY2d 166, 173-174).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Krausman, 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 appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered June 26, 1997, which, upon denying his objections to two orders of the same court (Mrsich, H.E.), both dated January 3, 1997, inter alia, denying his petition for downward modification, found him in willful violation of a prior order of support dated September 10, 1991, assessed child support arrears in the sum of $13,084, and directed him to pay $100 a week in child support.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts, by deleting the provisions thereof which denied the appellant’s objections to those portions of the Hearing Examiner’s orders which directed him to pay the sum of $100 per week in child support, and substituting therefor a provision directing the appellant to pay child support in the decreased sum of $33.33 per week, effective October 2, 1996; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, the orders dated January 3, 1997, are modified accordingly, and the matter is remitted to [224]*224the Family Court, Westchester County, to determine the amount of any credit due the appellant and to apply that credit to any arrears he still owes.

The appellant father established a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a downward modification of child support (see, Family Ct Act § 461 [b] [ii]; Dowd v Dowd, 178 AD2d 330). Thus, as of October 2, 1996, the date of his petition, the support payments should be reduced to the extent indicated (see, Matter of Dox v Tynon, 90 NY2d 166, 173-174).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 223, 697 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yeager-v-yeager-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack