From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Jackson v. Shuler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 2002
292 A.D.2d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2000-07522

Submitted March 5, 2002.

March 18, 2002.

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Staton J.), dated July 31, 2000, which denied her objections to an order of the same court (Chang, H.E.), dated April 13, 2000, which, after a hearing, denied her petition for an upward modification of child support.

Howard D. Simmons, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court properly denied her objections to the Hearing Examiner's order which denied her petition for an upward modification of child support. Although the mother presented testimony from two witnesses to support her claim that her child care costs had increased considerably since the original order of support was issued, the Hearing Examiner found that those witnesses were not credible. "In reviewing a determination made by the Family Court, great deference should be given to the decision of the Hearing Examiner, who was in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses" (Matter of Department of Social Servs. v. Henderson, 269 A.D.2d 395, 396).

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.

RITTER, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, FRIEDMANN and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Jackson v. Shuler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 2002
292 A.D.2d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

In the Matter of Jackson v. Shuler

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF AUDREY JACKSON, appellant, v. PATRICK SHULER, respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 18, 2002

Citations

292 A.D.2d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
739 N.Y.S.2d 284

Citing Cases

Piernick v. Nazinitsky

In determining a change of circumstances, a court need not rely upon the party's account of his or her…

Perrego v. Lorraine Perrego

Although the appellant claimed a loss of business since the time of the divorce, the Support Magistrate was…