Legal Opinion

Slocum v. Robertson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 14, 1995PublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. Buck v. BuckAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
  2. Griffin v. JanikAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
  3. Stock v. StockAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
  4. Niagara County Department of Social Services v. CunninghamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Niagara County Department of Social Services ex rel. Kearns v. HueberAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
  2. NIAGARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL, SERVICES v. HUEBER, ROGER L.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API