IN RE COMMR. SOCIAL SERV., 16 N.Y.3d 846 (2011)

2011 NY Slip Op 02723, 947 N.E.2d 153, 922 N.Y.S.2d 262

In the Matter of COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES, on Behalf of MAUDLYN VR., Respondent, v. PAUL C, Appellant.

No. 123 SSM 7.Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
Decided April 5, 2011.

APPEAL, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered May 11, 2010. The Appellate Division (1) affirmed an order of the Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, which had denied inpartrespondent father’s objections to a December 2006 support order directing him to pay

Page 847

child support, and (2) affirmed a subsequent order of the same court which had denied all of the father’s objections to a November 2007 order denying his motion for summary judgment and to a January 2008 child support order directing him to pay child support without a deviation from the Child Support Standards Act guidelines. The following question was certified by the Appellate Division: “Was the order of the Family Court, as affirmed by this Court, properly made?”

Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Paul C, 73 AD3d 469, affirmed.

Barry A. Elisofon, Brooklyn, for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Julie Steiner
of counsel), for respondent.

Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur in memorandum.

OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered upon the ground it is unnecessary.

In this child support proceeding, the courts below correctly held that the Commissioner of Social Services was not required to prove that the award of public assistance to the mother was justified. The father suggested that he could bear the burden of proving that the mother had undisclosed resources available for support of the child, but failed to make an adequate offer of proof on this issue.

Page 848

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

CORDAS v. PEERLESS TRANSP. CO., 27 N.Y.S.2d 198 (1941)

27 N.Y.S.2d 198 CORDAS et al. v. PEERLESS TRANSP. CO. et al. City Court of…

1 day ago

WOOD v. DUFF-GORDON, Wood v. Duff-Gordon, 222 N.Y. 88 (1917)

222 N.Y. 88 (1917) Dec 4, 1917 · New York Court of Appeals Otis F. Wood, Appellant,…

2 weeks ago

RAHABI v. MORRISON, 81 A.D.2d 434

81 A.D.2d 434 (1981) 440 N.Y.S. 2d 941 Aharon Rahabi, Appellant, v. Jack Morrison et…

2 weeks ago

MATTER OF SCHLINGER, 48 Misc.2d 345 (1965)

48 Misc.2d 345 (1965) In the Matter of The Estate of Joseph Schlinger, Deceased. Surrogate's…

2 weeks ago

BARTOLONE v. JECKOVICH, 481 N.Y.S. 2d 545 (1984).

103 A.D.2d 632 (1984)481 N.Y.S. 2d 545 Angelo J. Bartolone, Appellant, v. Lynne A. L.…

2 weeks ago

Matter of C.C. v D.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 05017 (Sept. 18, 2025)

Matter of C.C. v D.C. 2025 NY Slip Op 05017 Decided on September 18, 2025…

2 months ago