Slocum v. Robertson
| Decision Date | 14 July 1995 |
| Citation | 217 A.D.2d 940,631 N.Y.S.2d 260 |
| Parties | Matter of Darlene SLOCUM, Respondent, v. Roy Mark ROBERTSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Roy Mark Robertson, Brockport, pro se.
Beth Farwell, Wellsville, for respondent.
Family Court properly denied respondent's objections to the Hearing Examiner's order. Respondent failed to demonstrate an unforeseen substantial change in circumstances warranting a downward modification of child support (see, Stock v. Stock, 202 A.D.2d 914, 915, 609 N.Y.S.2d 431). Further, respondent's child support obligation was properly determined on a per-household rather than a per-child basis (see, Buck v. Buck, 195 A.D.2d 818, 600 N.Y.S.2d 520; Matter of Niagara County Dept. of Social Servs. [Maxwell] v. Cunningham, 188 A.D.2d 1039, 592 N.Y.S.2d 1005; Matter of Griffin v. Janik, 185 A.D.2d 635, 586 N.Y.S.2d 49).
Order unanimously affirmed with costs. (Appeal from Order of Allegany County Family Court, Sprague, J.--Child Support.)
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In the Matter of Niagara County Dep't of Soc. Serv. v. Hueber
...of children living in different households” ( Buck v. Buck, 195 A.D.2d 818, 818, 600 N.Y.S.2d 520; see Matter of Slocum v. Robertson, 217 A.D.2d 940, 631 N.Y.S.2d 260). Contrary to the father's further contention, petitioner was not required to produce the child's custodian (hereafter, cust......
- World Auto Parts, Inc. v. Labenski