Slocum v. Robertson
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously *941affirmed with costs. Memorandum: 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 AD2d 914, 915). Further, respondent’s child support obligation was properly determined on a per-household rather than a per-child basis (see, Buck v Buck, 195 AD2d 818; Matter of Niagara County Dept. of Social Servs. [Maxwell] v Cunningham, 188 AD2d 1039; Matter of Griffin v Janik, 185 AD2d 635).…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Buck v. BuckAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Griffin v. JanikAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Stock v. StockAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Niagara County Department of Social Services v. CunninghamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
3Cited by2 opinions
- Niagara County Department of Social Services ex rel. Kearns v. HueberAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- NIAGARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL, SERVICES v. HUEBER, ROGER L.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011