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: CATTARAUGUS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF JAMES C. WEISS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. MARGARET O. STARK, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the objection is granted, respondent's petition is granted and respondent's child support obligation is reduced to $25 per month effective October 28, 2008.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding on behalf of the father of the child at issue, alleging that respondent mother was in violation of a prior order directing her to pay child support in the amount of $167 per month and seeking relief pursuant to Family Court Act § 454. Family Court erred in finding the mother in willful violation of the prior child support order. Petitioner established that the mother failed to pay support, which constitutes “prima facie evidence of a willful violation” (§ 454[3][a]; see Matter of Powers v. Powers, 86 N.Y.2d 63, 68-69). The mother, however, presented
“ ‘competent, credible evidence of [her] inability to make the required payments' “ (Matter of Christine L.M. v. Wlodek K., 45 AD3d 1452, 1452, quoting Powers, 86 N.Y.2d at 70).
The court also erred in denying the objection of the mother to that part of the Support Magistrate's order continuing the prior child support order and in denying her petition seeking a downward modification of her support obligation. The mother established that she was unable to maintain steady employment and that her income was well below the poverty line, and thus her support obligation should have been reduced to the minimum level of $25 per month (see Family Ct Act § 413[1][d]; Matter of Paige v. Austin, 27 AD3d 474; Matter of Simmons v. Hyland, 235 A.D.2d 67, 70-71).
Finally, the mother contends that the court erred in failing to cap her unpaid child support arrears at $500 (see Family Ct Act § 413[1][g] ). That contention is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not preserved for our review (see Creighton v. Creighton, 222 A.D.2d 740, 743; see also Matter of White v. Knapp, 66 AD3d 1358).
Patricia L. Morgan
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: CAF 09-01219
Decided: July 02, 2010
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)