IN RE: Lohaiza SALADIN (2005)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

IN RE: Lohaiza SALADIN, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Thomas M. VICARI, Respondent-Appellant.

Decided: November 10, 2005

TOM, J.P., SAXE, NARDELLI, CATTERSON, MALONE, JJ.

Law Offices of Edward V. Sapone, New York (Edward V. Sapone of counsel), for appellant. Henry W. Blaylock, New York, for respondent.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about July 1, 2004, which denied respondent's objections to an order of the Support Magistrate, entered on or about April 28, 2004, fixing respondent's child support obligations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent's repeated failure to provide financial disclosure as directed, warranted an order of support based on the child's needs or standard of living, whichever is greater (Family Court Act § 413[1][k] ).

Both respondent and his counsel were granted repeated adjournments, and were apprised that there would be no further adjournments of the final hearing date. There is, accordingly, no merit to the contention that respondent and his counsel were not afforded a reasonable opportunity to appear and present evidence (cf. Matter of Lewis v. Crosson, 53 A.D.2d 1029, 386 N.Y.S.2d 154 [1976] ).

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network