Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995

Jimenez v. Jimenez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 18, 1995

222 A.D.2d 589; 636 N.Y.S.2d 642; 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12916

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Yaroshevsky v. Yaroshevsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Yarinsky v. Yarinsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Klindworth v. Garron (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Lewis v. Redhead (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Canazon v. Cooper (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Cattell v. Cattell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Stone v. Stone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In a support proceeding pursuant to the Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals *590from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Esquirol, J.), dated March 18, 1994, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Garcia, H.E.), dated January 3, 1994, which, inter alia, granted the mother’s application for an upward modification of child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court correctly denied his objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order. The appellant’s payment of the basic child support obligation does not reduce the appellant’s income below the applicable poverty level or the applicable self-support reserve. Thus, the Hearing Examiner properly applied the guidelines found in the Child Support Standards Act in this case {see, Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [d]; cf., Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [f]).

We defer to the Hearing Examiner’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility with regard to the appellant’s claims of financial distress (see, Matter of Maddox v Doty, 186 AD2d 135, 136). Similarly, we defer to the Hearing Examiner’s determination that the mother sufficiently established that she incurred child care expenses of $100 per week {see, Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [c] [4]).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.