Chupungco v. Acompado
In the Matter of Robert S. Chupungco v. Lizel Acompado
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
In a child sup port proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Miller, S.M.), dated September 12, 2006, which, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation, and (2) an order of the same court (Zimmerman, J.), dated February 26, 2007, which denied his objections to the order dated September 12, 2006.
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated September 12, 2006, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated February 26, 2007; and it is further,
*629 Ordered that the order dated February 26, 2007, is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The father failed to establish an unanticipated change in circumstances sufficient to justify a downward modification of his child support obligation (see Heller v Heller, 43 AD3d 999 [2007]; Matter of Connolly v Connolly, 39 AD3d 643 [2007]; Schlakman v Schlakman, 38 AD3d 640 [2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 982 [2007]; Matter of Silver v Akerson, 34 AD3d 487 [2006]).
The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.E, Lifson, Covello and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.