Frances W. is the petitioner and Steven M. is the respondent.
The Issue
The petitioner sought an order of child support against the respondent which was subsequently denied after a hearing.
In this case, Nina Luca was the plaintiff and Dominick Luca the defendant.
History
Dominick Luca originally requested a lowering of his ordered child support payments. His circumstances have allegedly changed which requires a reassessment based on the CSSA regulations. He also requested a modification or dismissal of an agreement regarding the dispersal of property. He also requested that a divorce judgment be set aside based on the modification of the property agreement. Finally, he required that he was paid by the plaintiff in the amount of $101,687 based on the terms of the agreement regarding the sale of their former home.
The petitioners in this case are Gabriel T. Russo, the Monroe County Department of Social Services and the New York State Department of Social Services. Leonard Rizzo is the respondent.
Motions
The respondent moves to dismiss the petition.
The petitioners in this case are L. Douglas Wilder and the Governor of Virginia et all. The respondent in the case is the Virginia Hospital Association.
Background Information
In order for a medical services provider such as a hospital to qualify for federal assistance in paying for medical care provided to the needy, the State must submit a plan to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Once approved, this plan will establish a scheme for the reimbursement of health care providers. The Boren Amendment was passed by Congress in 1980 and this requires the reimbursements to the provider at rates that are set by the state. These rates must be adequate and meet the cost to provide efficient care at the facilities.
In this case, Matthew G. Czajak is the petitioner and Donna A. Vavonese is the respondent.
The Background
The Family Court Act provides jurisdiction over paternity to Family Court only when determining issues of support. The Family Court does not have the authority to ascertain status except when involved in adoption proceedings. A New York Custody Lawyer said that a father looking to establish paternity when the child is being supported by the mother’s ex-husband cannot be determined here due to the court’s lack of jurisdiction.
In this case, Michael Bast is the appellant, while Shelley R. Rossoff is the respondent.
History
A New York Family Lawyer explained that this appeal required consideration of child support payments in a situation where both parents retain custody of the child. The Child Support Standards act needs to be applied, and it is best that the assessment be made as it would in any other case. Because the other levels of the court system did not follow the formula laid out in the CSSA however, a modification is required to remit to recalculate child support requirements.
Helen Alexander is the petitioner in this case. The respondent is Lyle Alexander.
History
Helen Alexander married Lyle Alexander on March 17th of 1989. The couple separated in the last quarter of the following year. Helen Alexander and her child from a previous marriage are both social service recipients.
In this case, Patricia Bryant is the respondent-appellant and James Bryant is the appellant respondent.
History
Mr. and Mrs. Bryant were originally married in 1976. Their two children were born 1981 and 1983. The initial separation between the couple took place in 1994, with an understanding between the two of them that Mrs. Bryant would have physical custody of the children, although they would share custody. The following year, Mr. Bryant was ordered to pay $116 each week in child support.
A woman prayed for and obtained two order of protection against her ex-husband: one from the Monroe County Family Court and the other from the Rochester City Court on December 11, 1996 and February 9, 1996. The orders of protection were served on the ex-husband ordering him to refrain from making any contact whatsoever with his ex-wife.
On Christmas Day, just 14 days after the second Order of Protection was served and entered, the ex-wife received 11 phone calls at her apartment. The caller hung up and never said a word. The police traced five of those phone calls and found that they had originated from the apartment of the woman’s ex-husband.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the woman went before the Family Court and commenced an action for contempt against her ex-husband because of those five phone calls. The Family Court found the ex-husband guilty of contempt and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment.
The appellant in this case was also the former wife of the defendant. The appellant has filed for a motion to order the court to review the family support case. The former husband, also known as the former husband, has filed a motion to terminate his financial support to the former wife and reduce his payments for child support.
A New York Custody Lawyer said that the family court was tasked to review the case and determine whether the rulings should stand. In order to begin reviewing the matter, the divorce settlement of the former spouses should also be submitted for review. According to the findings of the family court, the trial court’s rulings on the marital agreement were unclear or can be interpreted in many ways. The appellate court has determined that a reversal of proceedings should be in order to determine the correctness of the trial court decisions.
The former husband and the former wife have 2 children below the age of majority. The court has finalized the divorce settlement and ordered the former husband to pay support to his former wife. He was also ordered to provide financial support for the two children. According to the family law, the former wife was entitled spousal support. The amount of support will be deducted from the former husband’s income. The spousal support was to be paid to the former wife every year. The marital agreement contains the terms of payment for spousal support. The former husband must comply with this rule by family court.
New York Family Law Blog