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
THE SIX-MONTH EXTENSION FOR COMMENCEMENT OF AN ACTION UNDER CPLR 205(A) IS NOT AVAILABLE WHEN THE PRIOR ACTION WAS VOLUNTARILY DISCONTINUED; HERE THE CPLR 205(A) EXTENSION WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR A STATE ACTION WHICH PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTED TO COMMENCE AFTER VOLUNTARILY DISCONTINUING A SIMILAR FEDERAL ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
There Was a Rational Bases for Fire District Board of Commissioners’ Rejection of Petitioner’s Bid to Supply a Radio Dispatch System—Court Cannot Substitute Its Own Judgment for the Board’s
FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE SIGNING OF A DOCUMENT WITHOUT READING IT DISMISSED AS TIME BARRED; RELEVANT STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS AND BURDENS OF PROOF EXPLAINED.
FAILURE TO CHARGE THE JURY ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES REQUIRED REVERSAL.
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A CRACKED WINDOW PANE BROKE AND FELL, INJURING HER HAND; THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF AT LEAST 33 INSTANCES WHERE A WINDOW IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR (A RECURRING DANGEROUS CONDITION), RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO INSPECT THE WINDOWS (SECOND DEPT).
Slippery Dock Was an Open and Obvious Condition—Landowner Had No Duty to Protect Against the Condition
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW RESULTED IN REVERSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS REJECTED.
AMENDMENT TO STATUTE CHANGING THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR ACTION ON A PAYMENT BOND DID NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

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...