Legal Opinion · Dissent

Holterman v. Holterman

New York Court of Appeals

Decided June 10, 2004Published

1Dissent

RS. Smith, J. (dissenting).

I think the decision of Supreme Court, which the Appellate Division affirmed, is flawed in three ways. First, it fails to consider or justify the total burden that the multiple rulings it contains place upon defendant. Secondly, it adopts an illogical and unfair method of allocating the parties’ income for purposes of calculating child support payments. And thirdly, it applies our decision in O’Brien v O’Brien (66 NY2d 576 [1985]) on facts totally opposite, in material respects, to the facts of O’Brien itself—resulting in an application of O’Brien that does no good…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. O'Brien v. O'BrienNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
  2. McSparron v. McSparronNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
  3. Mahoney v. MahoneySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
  4. In Re the Marriage of HorstmannSupreme Court of Iowa · 1978
  5. In Re the Marriage of WashburnWashington Supreme Court · 1984

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API