You are here: / / PUBLIC POLICY PRECLUDED RECOVERY OF CHILD SUPPORT OVERPAYMENTS (SECOND...

PUBLIC POLICY PRECLUDED RECOVERY OF CHILD SUPPORT OVERPAYMENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that public policy precluded plaintiff from recovering child support overpayments:

“There is strong public policy in this state, which the [Child Support Standards Act] did not alter, against restitution or recoupment of the overpayment of child support” … . The rationale behind this policy is that child support payments are deemed to have been used to support the children, so “no funds exist from which one may recoup moneys so expended”… . “[R]ecoupment of child support payments is only appropriate under limited circumstances'” … .

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of any circumstances which counter this state’s strong public policy against reimbursement of child support overpayments … . The plaintiff could have requested a modification of his child support obligation in accordance with the stipulation, but failed to do so … . Fortgang v Fortgang, 2019 NY Slip Op 02068, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SOUGHT TO ADD TWO PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANTS (PA’S) AS DEFENDANTS AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT DOCTORS WERE THE PA’S EMPLOYERS OR SUPERVISORS; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PA’S HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTION; THEREFORE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED CONSTRUCTION WORK ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY CAUSED WATER TO ENCROACH ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY; THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION WORK WAS DONE MORE THAN THREE YEARS BEFORE THE ACTION WAS FILED; THE RELATED NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS WERE NOT TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THEY MAY CONSTITUTE “CONTINUING WRONGS” (SECOND DEPT). ​
PROOF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 WERE MET (SECOND DEPT).
REPORTS BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S CONVICTION REVIEW UNIT (CRU) EXONERATING CONVICTED PERSONS ARE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL); AN EXONERATED PERSON MAY WAIVE THE SEALING REQUIREMENT (CPL 160.50) AND CONSENT TO DISCLOSURE OF A REPORT; THE RELEASED REPORT HERE IS SUBJECT TO REDACTION DETERMINED IN AN IN CAMERA REVIEW BY A JUDGE (SECOND DEPT).
Requirements for a Finding of Civil Contempt Explained (Not Met Here)
Question of Fact About Property Owner’s Liability for Condition of Sidewalk Raised
THE PEOPLE USED DEFENDANT’S PRETRIAL SILENCE AGAINST HIM IN THEIR DIRECT CASE; ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Not Entitled to Attorney’s Fees after Plaintiff’s Motion for a Voluntary Discontinuance in a Foreclosure Action Was Granted Without Prejudice—Defendant Was Not a “Prevailing Party” within the Meaning of Real Property Law 282—Denial of Attorney’s Fees Was Not an Abuse of Discretion Under CPLR 3217 (c)

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A CONDITIONAL ORDER OF... NONPARTY SUBPOENA PROPERLY QUASHED BECAUSE IT DID NOT PROVIDE THE REASONS FOR...