Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: CINDY A. NAAS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. GARY P. WURTH, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order denying her objections to the order of the Support Magistrate, which had dismissed her petition seeking child support arrears. We affirm. Although petitioner submitted an order requiring respondent to, inter alia, pay weekly child support, petitioner's claim that respondent had failed to make the payments required by the support order was primarily based upon her own testimony regarding respondent's alleged nonpayment. Respondent, on the other hand, testified that he had complied with the support order by making payments in excess of what was required, including payments for the mortgage on the home that petitioner, respondent, and their children shared during the entire period that arrears allegedly accrued; weekly childcare; major home repairs; utilities, telephone, and internet; and certain educational expenses for the children. After a hearing, the Support Magistrate determined that petitioner's testimony regarding the arrears was not credible and thus concluded that petitioner “did not meet her burden of proving that [respondent] ‘failed to pay support as ordered’ ” (Matter of Bow v Bow, 117 AD3d 1542, 1544 [4th Dept 2014]). Contrary to petitioner's contention, Family Court properly gave the credibility findings of the Support Magistrate “great deference” when denying petitioner's objections to the support order (Matter of Gibson v Murtaugh, 141 AD3d 1104, 1104 [4th Dept 2016]; see Matter of Bashir v Brunner, 169 AD3d 1382, 1383 [4th Dept 2019]).
Entered: June 6, 2025
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 450
Decided: June 06, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)