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: Abraham STERN, appellant, v. Rebecca STERN, respondent.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Pearl, J.), dated June 15, 2006, as granted the mother's objections to an order of the same court (Baur, S.M.), dated March 22, 2006, as amended, which granted his petition for a downward modification of a prior order of child support and directed him to pay child support in the sum of $1,354.16 per month.
ORDERED that the order dated June 15, 2006, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the mother's objections are denied, and the Support Magistrate's order, as amended, is reinstated.
The father commenced a proceeding to modify a prior order of child support based on the emancipation of one child who turned 21 and the father's assumption of custody of the parties' two other children. The parties' separation agreement requires the father to pay child support to the mother until each child reaches emancipation and defines an emancipation event, inter alia, as “attaining the age of twenty-one” and “permanent residence of a child away from the residence of the Mother.” It is undisputed that one child has reached the age of 21 and two of the children permanently reside with the father. Consequently, the father is not required to pay support for these children. Since there is no triable issue of fact as to the father's petition, no hearing is required (see Wyser-Pratte v. Wyser-Pratte, 66 N.Y.2d 715, 496 N.Y.S.2d 991, 487 N.E.2d 901; cf. Schnoor v. Schnoor, 189 A.D.2d 809, 592 N.Y.S.2d 460; Grimaldi v. Grimaldi, 167 A.D.2d 443, 562 N.Y.S.2d 126), and the Support Magistrate properly granted the father's petition for a downward modification (see Rocchio v. Rocchio, 213 A.D.2d 535, 537, 623 N.Y.S.2d 917; see also People ex rel. Breitstein v. Aaronson, 285 A.D.2d 566, 567, 727 N.Y.S.2d 477; Matter of Goldberg v. Benner, 247 A.D.2d 385, 386, 668 N.Y.S.2d 659; Matter of Christodoulou v. Christodoulou, 212 A.D.2d 607, 622 N.Y.S.2d 545). The amount to be paid by the father to the mother for the support of the remaining child is subject to a final determination upon completion of a hearing to adjudicate the mother's pending petition for an upward modification due to changed circumstances based on the needs of that child.
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: May 29, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)