Hamlin v. Kirnan
In the Matter of Brenda Hamlin v. Donald Kirnan
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Respondent appeals from a Family Court order which denied his objections to the Decision and Order of a Hearing Examiner granting petitioner’s application for an upward modification in child support. The Hearing Examiner’s determination that respondent, a licensed real estate *1039 broker, was capable of earning $20,000 per year was not contrary to the weight of evidence, and the imputation of that sum as respondent’s gross income was proper (see, Family Ct Act §413 [1] [b] [5] [v]; Hickland v Hickland, 39 NY2d 1 ; Weiner v Weiner, 97 Misc 2d 920 ). Also, the Hearing Examiner did not err in refusing to award respondent a credit towards arrears in child support for moneys he voluntarily paid for his son’s hockey equipment and related expenses (see, Horne v Horne, 22 NY2d 219, 223 ; Kerpen v Kerpen, 172 AD2d 496 ). (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Rossi, J. — Child Support.) Present — Denman, P. J., Balio, Lawton, Fallon and Davis, JJ.
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.