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: Michelle M. JUNEAU, Respondent, v. Kevin P. JUNEAU, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County (McGill, J.), entered December 19, 1994, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, to direct respondent to pay for the support of his child.
We affirm Family Court's denial of respondent's objections to the Hearing Examiner's order. After a hearing, the Hearing Examiner, in accordance with the formula set forth in the Child Support Standards Act (Family Ct. Act § 413[1][c] ), established respondent's basic support obligation for his daughter in the sum of $167 biweekly. Respondent filed objections claiming that the order was unjust and inappropriate because the Hearing Examiner did not consider the expenses he incurs in exercising his visitation rights. Inasmuch as the child is receiving public assistance in the form of subsidized day care and food stamps, the Hearing Examiner was precluded from considering respondent's visitation expenses (see, Matter of Pandozy v. Gaudette, 192 A.D.2d 779, 780, 596 N.Y.S.2d 173).
In any event, visitation expenses incurred by a noncustodial parent can provide the basis for reducing the basic child support obligation only when such expenses are, inter alia, “extraordinary” (Family Ct. Act § 413[1][f] [9] ). In this case, although the record shows that respondent exercised extensive visitation, we find that the services provided to the child by him during said visitations cannot be considered extraordinary, given, inter alia, the disparity between the parties' earnings and the competing expenses incurred by petitioner (see, Matter of Pandozy v. Gaudette, supra ).
We have not considered respondent's remaining contentions because they have been withdrawn or waived due to respondent's failure to file specific written objections (see, Matter of Ballard v. Davis, 229 A.D.2d 705, 706, 645 N.Y.S.2d 148, 149).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
WHITE, Justice.
CARDONA, P.J., and MERCURE, CASEY and CARPINELLO, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: January 23, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third 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)