Ouimet v. Ouimet

• Decision Date: 07 October 1992
• Citation: 590 N.Y.S.2d 818,186 A.D.2d 1002
• Parties: Matter of Barbara A. OUIMET, Respondent, v. John C. OUIMET, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 818

590 N.Y.S.2d 818

186 A.D.2d 1002

Matter of Barbara A. OUIMET, Respondent, v. John C. OUIMET, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 7, 1992

Legal Services of Cent. New York, Inc. (Eric Tohtz), Oswego, for appellant. Richard B. Palmer, Oswego, for respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly denied respondent's objections to the findings and order of the hearing examiner. Respondent's contention that his support obligation should be reduced because his yearly income had steadily declined is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is unpreserved for our review (see, Matter of Latrice R., 93 A.D.2d 838, 461 N.Y.S.2d 61, lv. denied, 59 N.Y.2d 604, 464 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 451 N.E.2d 504; Matter of Van Alstyne v. David Q., 92 A.D.2d 971, 972, 460 N.Y.S.2d 848). If we were to reach it, we would find that respondent's support obligation was correctly calculated under the Child Support Standards Act (Family Ct. Act § 413). The fact that the order of support may work some hardship on respondent does not compel the conclusion that it is unjust or inappropriate, especially given the disparity of income between respondent and petitioner (see, Family Ct. Act § 413[1][f][10]. (Appeal from Order of Oswego County Family Court, Roman, J.--Child Support.)

CALLAHAN, J.P., and GREEN, PINE, BOEHM and DAVIS, JJ., concur.