You are here: / / FATHER’S PETITION TO SUSPEND CHILD SUPPORT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED...
,

FATHER’S PETITION TO SUSPEND CHILD SUPPORT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BUT THE DISMISSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN “WITH PREJUDICE” BECAUSE FAMILY COURT HAS CONTINUING JURISDICTION OVER SUPPORT MATTERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Family Court, determined that although father’s petition to suspend child support was properly dismissed, it should not have been dismissed “with prejudice:”

Family Court properly dismissed that branch of the father’s petition which was to suspend his basic child support obligation on the ground of parental alienation without a hearing … .

However, the Family Court should not have provided that the dismissal was “with prejudice.” The court has continuing jurisdiction to modify, set aside, or vacate a prior order of child support pursuant to Family Court Act § 451 … . Matter of Lew v Lew, 2023 NY Slip Op 01192, Second Dept 3-8-23

Practice Point: Family Court has continuing jurisdiction over support matters. Therefore father’s petition to suspend child support, although properly dismissed, should not have been dismissed “with prejudice.”

 

You might also like
Presumption in Favor of Resentencing (re: the New Scheme for Drug Offenses) Not Rebutted—Supreme Court Should Not Have Denied Motion for Resentencing
ALTHOUGH COMPLAINANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE COOPERATIVE BASED UPON A DISABILITY, COMPLAINANT DID DEMONSTRATE THE COOPERATIVE IMPROPERLY RETALIATED AGAINST HER AFTER SHE FILED THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WITH THE NYS DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA HEARING, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER HAS THE RIGHT TO PETITION FOR CUSTODY DESPITE ABSENCE OF BIOLOGICAL OR ADOPTIVE RELATIONSHIP.
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO SIGN A PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK POSTED ON YELP WAS OPINION, NOT ACTIONABLE LIBEL.
SURGERY, EVEN AFTER A DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A PRE-SURGERY PHYSICAL EXAM, IS NOT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AND DOES NOT WARRANT SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT).
Family Court committed reversible error by depriving father of his right to self-representation

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF TWO PROXIMATE CAUSES OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL:... IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION THE BANK MUST PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306 WHICH...