From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Jordal v. Jordal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 28, 1993
193 A.D.2d 1102 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

May 28, 1993

Appeal from the Lewis County Family Court, Merrell, J.

Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Boomer, Davis and Boehm, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Lewis County Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: At the hearing on the petition for an upward modification of the father's child support obligation, no stenographer was present to record the proceedings. An audio tape recording of the hearing was made, but the tape is inaudible. As a result, the father was unable to include a transcript of the hearing in the record on appeal. The statement in lieu of stenographic transcript (see, CPLR 5525 [d]) is not adequate to permit meaningful review of the support order. It is impossible to determine the basis for the Hearing Examiner's calculation of the father's support obligation from the statement in lieu of stenographic transcript and the other documents included in the record. Therefore, we remit the matter for a new hearing and new findings with respect to the father's child support obligation (see, Parsons v Parsons, 101 A.D.2d 1017; Patrizio v Patrizio, 94 A.D.2d 971).


Summaries of

Matter of Jordal v. Jordal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 28, 1993
193 A.D.2d 1102 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Matter of Jordal v. Jordal

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MARY L. JORDAL, Respondent, v. TOBY JORDAL, Appellant

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

Date published: May 28, 1993

Citations

193 A.D.2d 1102 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
598 N.Y.S.2d 412

Citing Cases

Wagner v. Wagner

"Parties to an appeal are entitled to have that record show the facts as they really happened at trial, and…

Vaccaro v. Vaccaro

Memorandum: In these proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act articles 6 and 8, respondent-petitioner father…