From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Krassner v. Krassner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 18, 2005
20 A.D.3d 509 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2004-04751.

July 18, 2005.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered May 5, 1999, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), entered May 14, 2004, which, upon an order of the same court dated October 30, 2003, granting that branch of the defendant's motion which was, in effect, for leave to enter a money judgment for arrears in child support, as amended by an order of the same court dated April 28, 2004, awarded the defendant the principal sum of $18,088.48.

Cohen Krassner, New York, N.Y. (Steven Cohen of counsel), for appellant.

David Isaacson and Peter A. Joseph, New City, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: Florio, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Lifson, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof awarding the defendant the principal sum of $18,088.48 and substituting therefor a provision awarding the defendant the sum of $17,679.73; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court failed to properly credit the plaintiff with an overpayment of $408.75 for expenses relating to the 2002 summer camp expenses for the parties' son. Accordingly, the judgment should be modified to reflect this credit in the plaintiff's favor.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Krassner v. Krassner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 18, 2005
20 A.D.3d 509 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Krassner v. Krassner

Case Details

Full title:MARK KRASSNER, Appellant, v. HEIDI KRASSNER, Respondent

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

Date published: Jul 18, 2005

Citations

20 A.D.3d 509 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
799 N.Y.S.2d 256

Citing Cases

Shi v. Lu

44 was improper, as it, in effect, denied the father a credit for an overpayment he made toward child care…

F.S. v. K.O.

This hardship mostly goes unaddressed in the law. However, the Courts have not been reluctant to grant a…