You are here: / / Motion to Suspend Child Support Properly Denied; Criteria Explained

Motion to Suspend Child Support Properly Denied; Criteria Explained

In affirming Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to suspend child support, the Second Department explained the criteria for early suspension of the child support obligation:

Generally, parents have a statutory duty to continually support their children until they reach 21 years of age (see Family Ct Act § 413[1][a]…). ” However, where the noncustodial parent establishes that his or her right of reasonable access to the child has been unjustifiably frustrated by the custodial parent, child support payments may be suspended'” … .

Here, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, that branch of his motion which was to suspend his obligation to pay child support. The plaintiff alleges continuing conduct on the part of the defendant which, if proven, would not “rise to the level of deliberate frustration’ or active interference’ with the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights”… . Jones v Jones, 2013 NY Slip Op 05879, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

You might also like
THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216 BECAUSE ISSUE WAS NEVER JOINED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for a Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Documentary Evidence and a Motion to Dismiss Supported by Submitted Evidence Explained (Not Met Here)
THE JUDGE PROPERLY HANDLED A JUROR’S HESITATION WHEN THE JURY WAS POLLED, THE JUROR WAS QUESTIONED BY THE JUDGE OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, THE JUDGE DETERMINED THE JUROR WAS NOT UNDER IMPROPER PRESSURE AND SENT THE JURY BACK FOR FURTHER DELIBERATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
THE INABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE SLIPPERY SUBSTANCE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL WAS FATAL TO THE LAWSUIT; ALLEGING THE FLOOR WAS SHINY OR SLIPPERY IS NOT ENOUGH, CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT).
Dispositional Hearing Should Have Been Held After Neglect Finding
COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 BECAUSE NO 90-DAY NOTICE HAD BEEN SERVED; DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WAS NOT WARRANTED, BUT PRECLUSION OF FURTHER DISCOVERY WAS APPROPRIATE (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE HOLDER OF THE NOTE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT BECAUSE THE NOTE ITSELF WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE LOAN SERVICER’S AFFIDAVIT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE FAMILY COURT HAD THE INHERENT POWER TO DETERMINE WHETHER RESPONDENT WAS THE CHILD’S FATHER; RESPONDENT WAS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM CONTESTING PATERNITY BASED ON HIS POSITION IN A PRIOR PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

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

Relationship of Prenuptial Agreement to Temporary Maintenance and Award of... Determination of Paternity Not in Child’s Best Interest; Mother Equitably...