The applicant of the case is Theodore Payton versus New York, Obie Riddick, and Applicant versus New York.
Appeals
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appeals for this case are arguing whether or not the statutes of New York State law in regard to entry of a person’s home without a warrant are constitutional.
Anna O’Connor is the respondent and James G. Curcio is the appellant in this case.
The father is appealing to recover child support payments.
The issue became whether or not child support payments that are due can be waived because of an order of judgment. As long as the obligation to make those payments hasn’t occurred, they can be waived.
In this case, Thomas B. is the respondent and Lydia D. is the appellant.
History
Two parents tried to come to a written agreement where child support payments would be terminated because the child being supported had obtained a full time job. However, economic independence of a child is not enough reason to discontinue required child support payments.
Maureen K. is the petitioner in this case and James H. is the respondent.
History
In 1995, a motion was filed that aimed to increase the child support payments made by Mr. H from $45 to $106 weekly. Mr. H objected to this order, and a Hearing Examiner was assigned to the issue.
In this case, the plaintiff is Margaret A., and Shawn B. is the defendant.
Modification of Child Support
Three circumstances entitled a person to seek an adjustment of assessed child support. The first is if a drastic change in circumstances occurs. The second is if either party’s income has changed by more than 15% since the last time the order was modified or from when it was entered. Finally, it can be challenged for modification if it has been more than three years since an order was entered on the matter.
Queens Family 19
This is a hearing for divorce and the plaintiff and defendants are Chaachou versus Chaachou et al.
Original Case
The petitioner of the case is the father and the respondent in the case is the Department of Children and Families. The lawyer for the petitioner is Kathleen K. Pena from the Law Office of Kathleen K. Pena. The lawyers for the respondent are Charles J. Crist, Jr., The Attorney General, and Lori R. Shapiro, the Assistant Attorney General of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The judge for the case is J. Klein.
Petitioner’s Case
The petitioner in this particular case is seeking a petition for writ of prohibition for one of his children, T.S. He states that the state of Florida does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of T.S., his child. The petitioner states that he should be granted the petition based on the Uniform Custody Jurisdiction Act, section 61.514 in the Florida Statutes. He states that as the child, T.S. was not born while they resided in Florida, the state does not have proper jurisdiction to handle this particular case.
This is a hearing for divorce and the plaintiff and defendants are Chaachou versus Chaachou et al.
Original Case
This is a divorce hearing that dealt with a divorce, suit money, and counsel fees as well as both temporary and permanent alimony. The relief in the case deals with a common law marriage. There is a petition for certiorari that seeks to end an order that holds that a common law marriage is not sufficient to support alimony, suit money, and attorney’s fees.
In this case, Ronald A. Usenza and Maura G. Gannon were both respondents and petitioners, while Maura G. Gannon was named only as a respondent.
The father objected to the Findings of Fact and order which occurred after a reversal and remand was issued by the Appellate Division. Now, the Support Magistrate must once again take up the issue and make a ruling on the child support issues based only on information presented in the original petitions from the year 2000, as everything submitted after that point is invalid and must not be taken into account.
History
Frances Bill is the respondent in this case where Gerald Bill was the appellant.
Summary
The Child Support Standards Act is the standard method used to determine child support payments based on the parents income. One of the issues included in the act is that the costs of child care are to be shared by parents in proportion to their earnings, and whether those terms can be enforced when the parties are unaware of the terms of the CSSA. The court ended up agreeing with the Family Court which ordered the father in the case to pay a percentage of the child care expenses encountered by the mother.
New York Family Law Blog