From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Kraemer v. Kalish

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 1, 2004
11 A.D.3d 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

CAF 03-02002.

October 1, 2004.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Joan S. Kohout, J.), entered April 23, 2003. The order denied petitioner's objections to an order of a Hearing Examiner dismissing the petition for a downward modification of petitioner's child support obligation.

Before: Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.


It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order of Family Court denying his objections to a Hearing Examiner's order that dismissed his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation. We affirm the order inasmuch as the record on appeal is insufficient to enable this Court to determine whether petitioner established a significant change of circumstances and reduced income to entitle him to a downward modification of his child support obligation. "Petitioner therefore has failed to present `a sufficient record to allow appellate review of this issue'" ( People ex rel. Person v. Beilein, 306 AD2d 864, 865, [2003], quoting People v. Barney, 99 NY2d 367, 374; see also Yoonessi v. State of New York, 289 AD2d 998, 1000, lv denied 98 NY2d 609, cert denied 537 US 1047; Usyk v. Track Side Blazers, 182 AD2d 1125).


Summaries of

In the Matter of Kraemer v. Kalish

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 1, 2004
11 A.D.3d 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

In the Matter of Kraemer v. Kalish

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JOSEPH A. KRAEMER, Appellant, v. ANDREA KALISH, Respondent

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

Date published: Oct 1, 2004

Citations

11 A.D.3d 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
782 N.Y.S.2d 221

Citing Cases

Denoto v. Denoto

The mother contends that the Support Magistrate did not have jurisdiction under the Family Court Act or the…