You are here: / / 18% REDUCTION IN INCOME SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT RECALCULATION OF CHILD S...

18% REDUCTION IN INCOME SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT RECALCULATION OF CHILD SUPPORT.

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined an 18% reduction in father’s income was sufficient to warrant a recalculation of his child support:

… [T]he father cites his significantly reduced income from 2012 to 2013 as the requisite change in circumstances. We agree with the father that such income reduction—approximately 18%—constitutes a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a recalculation of his child support obligation … . Matter of Brink v Brink, 2017 NY Slip Op 00879, 4th Dept 2-3-17

FAMILY LAW (18% REDUCTION IN INCOME SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT RECALCULATION OF CHILD SUPPORT)/CHILD SUPPORT (18% REDUCTION IN INCOME SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT RECALCULATION OF CHILD SUPPORT)

/by
You might also like
ARBITRATOR DID NOT EXCEED HIS AUTHORITY IN FINDING THAT THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT REQUIRED DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS, INCLUDING NOTICE, BEFORE AN EMPLOYEE COULD BE TERMINATED FOR ALLEGED MISCONDUCT, ARBITRATOR’S AWARD SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION, THE RELATED DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION WAS NOT TRANSFERABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
Conclusory Allegations Will Not Survive a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action—Punitive Damages Must Be Connected to a Substantive Cause of Action—Late Disclaimer in Property Damage Action Is Valid Absent Prejudice
LATE REQUEST TO EXERCISE A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, CONVICTION REVERSED.
THE SMELL OF PCP PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE; DEFENDANT’S APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS CHASTISED FOR FAILURE TO CALL THE COURT’S ATTENTION TO CONTRARY AUTHORITY, UNFOUNDED ASSERTIONS THAT THE APPEAL PRESENTED A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, AND UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF PERJURY, MISCONDUCT AND CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AGAINST AN ARRESTING OFFICER (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT COMPLAINED THAT HIS ATTORNEY HAD NOT FILED OMNIBUS MOTIONS BUT DEFENSE COUNSEL SAID HE HAD FILED THEM AND THE COURT SAID IT HAD RECEIVED THEM; IN FACT, HOWEVER NO MOTIONS HAD BEEN FILED; DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINTS ABOUT HIS ASSIGNED COUNSEL WARRANTED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT; DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
Statute of Limitations to Reopen Tax Foreclosure Default Judgment Applies In Face of the Claim that Respondent Was Never Notified of the Proceeding
New York’s Seatbelt Defense Applies to Action Stemming from Pennsylvania Accident (Where There Is No Seatbelt Defense)—Defense Is Not a Conduct-Regulating Law (Which Would Trigger the Application of Pennsylvania Law)—Rather the Defense Relates to the Allocation of Damages (Which Supports the Application of New York Law)

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

[gravityform id=”1″ title=”false” description=”false” tabindex=”2″]

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

UNDER CRITERIA RECENTLY ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, GRANDPARENTS HAD... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE AND WHETHER ADDITIONAL SAFETY...