From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Saladin v. Vicari

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 10, 2005
23 A.D.3d 215 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

6739.

November 10, 2005.

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.

Law Offices of Edward. Sapone, New York (Edward. Sapone of counsel), for appellant.

Henry W. Blaylock, New York, for respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Catterson and Malone, JJ., concur.


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 Ct Act § 413 [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 AD2d 1029 ).


Summaries of

In the Matter of Saladin v. Vicari

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 10, 2005
23 A.D.3d 215 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

In the Matter of Saladin v. Vicari

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of LOHAIZA SALADIN, Respondent, v. THOMAS M. VICARI…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Nov 10, 2005

Citations

23 A.D.3d 215 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 8614
805 N.Y.S.2d 6

Citing Cases

Sowe-Stevenson v. Touray

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (James E. d'Auguste, J.), entered on or about June 20, 2011, which denied…

J.M. v. R.M. (In re Support Proceeding)

Pursuant to FCA §413(1)(k), when the court makes a determination that the minimum obligation would be unjust…