Pepe v. Pepe
| Citation | 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04133,9 N.Y.S.3d 161,128 A.D.3d 831 |
| Decision Date | 13 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | 2014-07002, 2014-09927, (Docket Nos. F-420-13/13A, F-3233-12/13B, C) |
| Parties | In the Matter of Bryan PEPE, respondent, v. Kristin PEPE, appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Kristin Pepe, appellant, v. Bryan Pepe, respondent. (Proceeding No. 2). |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
128 A.D.3d 831
9 N.Y.S.3d 161
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04133
In the Matter of Bryan PEPE, respondent
v.
Kristin PEPE, appellant. (Proceeding No. 1)
In the Matter of Kristin Pepe, appellant
v.
Bryan Pepe, respondent. (Proceeding No. 2).
2014-07002, 2014-09927, (Docket Nos. F-420-13/13A, F-3233-12/13B, C)
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 13, 2015.
Kristin Pepe, Naples, Florida, appellant pro se.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Opinion
Appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (William P. Warren, J.), dated June 17, 2014, and (2) an order of that court dated September 16, 2014. The first order, insofar as appealed from, granted the father's objection to so much of an order of that court (Catherine M. Miklitsch, S.M.), entered April 8, 2014, as amended May 29, 2014, as denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligations as set forth in an order of support dated September 27, 2012, and thereupon granted the petition and reduced the father's support obligations. The second order, insofar as appealed from, denied the mother's objections to stated portions of the amended order which, inter alia, (1) denied, without prejudice, the mother's request for certain child care arrears, (2) modified the order of support dated September 27, 2012, by directing the father, effective February 13, 2013, to pay only 60% of child care expenses directly to the mother, (3) directed him, commencing on February 28, 2014, to make payments of only $50 weekly to the mother, through the New York State Support Collection Unit, to repay support arrears, and (4) failed to award her an attorney's fee under Family Court Act § 454(3).
ORDERED that the order dated June 17, 2014, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, the father's objection to so much of the order entered April 8, 2014, as amended May 29, 2014, as denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligations is denied, and the child support obligations set forth in the order of support dated September 27, 2012, are reinstated; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated September 16, 2014, is modified, on the law and the facts, (1) by deleting the provision thereof denying the mother's objection to so much of the amended order dated May 29, 2014, as modified the order of support dated September 27, 2012, by directing the father, effective February 13, 2013, to pay 60% of child care expenses directly to the mother, and substituting therefor a provision granting that objection by the mother, vacating that portion of the amended order dated May 29, 2014, and reinstating the provision in the order of support dated September 27, 2012, which directed the father to pay child care expenses in the
sum of $147.12 per week, payable to the New York State Support Collection Unit, effective December 6, 2013, and (2) by deleting
the provision thereof denying the mother's objection to so much of the amended order dated May 29, 2014, as directed the father, commencing on February 28, 2014, to make payments of $50 weekly to the mother, through the New York State Support Collection Unit, to repay support arrears, and substituting therefor a provision granting that objection to the extent of vacating that portion of the amended order dated May 29, 2014; as so modified, the order dated September 16, 2014, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Rockland County, for a determination under Family Court Act § 454(3) regarding an award of an attorney's fee to the mother's attorney; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the mother.
The parties were married on June...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Johnson
...declined to admit into evidence hospital records that were not certified or authenticated (see CPLR 4518 ; Matter of Pepe v. Pepe, 128 A.D.3d 831, 834, 9 N.Y.S.3d 161 ; Matter of Bronstein–Becher v. Becher, 25 A.D.3d 796, 797, 809 N.Y.S.2d 140 ; Matter of Damon J., 144 A.D.2d 467, 534 N.Y.S......
-
Cato v. Cato
...126 A.D.3d 895, 896–897, 6 N.Y.S.3d 90 ; see Matter of Lagani v. Li, 131 A.D.3d 1246, 16 N.Y.S.3d 863 ; Matter of Pepe v. Pepe, 128 A.D.3d 831, 834, 9 N.Y.S.3d 161 ; Family Ct. Act § 451 ). "A parent's loss of employment may constitute a substantial change in circumstances" (Matter of Ruben......
-
Straker v. Maynard-Straker
...alleged eye condition or that it rendered him unable to install drywall or perform some other type of work (see Matter of Pepe v. Pepe, 128 A.D.3d 831, 834, 9 N.Y.S.3d 161 ; Matter of Monroe v. Jordan–Monroe, 103 A.D.3d 803, 959 N.Y.S.2d 452 ; Matter of Gray v. Gray, 52 A.D.3d 1287, 1288, 8......
-
Binong Xu v. Sullivan
...895, 896–897, 6 N.Y.S.3d 90 ; see Family Ct Act § 451; Matter of Lagani v. Li, 131 A.D.3d 1246, 16 N.Y.S.3d 863 ; Matter of Pepe v. Pepe, 128 A.D.3d 831, 834, 9 N.Y.S.3d 161 ). Where loss of employment is the basis of the petition for downward modification, the parent "must submit competent......