Source: https://thewenzlawfirm.com/about-the-firm/noteworthy-cases/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 07:59:45+00:00

Document:
Badillo v. Badillo, 62 A.D.3d 635 (2nd Dept. 2009): The plaintiff did not engage in sanctionable conduct by opposing the defendant’s motion…Moreover, the Supreme Court did not follow the proper procedure for imposing a sanction, since it failed to specify in a written decision the conduct upon which the award was based, the reasons why it found the conduct to be frivolous, and the reasons the sanction was fixed in the sum indicated.
Iadanza v. Boeger, 58 A.D.3d 733 (2nd Dept. 2009): The Family Court properly directed the mother to pay 20% of the college expenses of the parties’ son…However, it was error to do so without directing that the mother’s child support obligation be reduced by any amounts she contributed, or may contribute in the future, toward room and board during those periods when the son lived, or may live in the future, away from home while attending college.
Spillman v. Spillman, 40 A.D.3d 770 (2nd Dept. 2007): In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the husband appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Suffolk County, which, after a hearing, and upon finding that he violated an order of protection of the same court, directed him inter alia to stay away from his wife, and to observe certain conditions for a period of three years. The record supports the Family Court’s determination that the husband violated the terms of a previously-issued order of protection by committing harassing acts against his wife.
Thomas v. Thomas, 820 N.Y.S.2d 316 (2nd Dept. 2006): The court erred in granting an Order of Protection where the acts alleged were not relatively contemporaneous.
Bugdin v. Bugdin, 17 AD3d 585, 793 N.Y.S.2d 505 (2nd Dept 2005): Mother sought to enforce written Stipulation of Settlement which provided that the father’s child support obligation would be periodically calculated pursuant to Child Support Standards Act. The Support Magistrate improperly required the mother to demonstrate the existence of a “change in circumstance” in order to have the father’s child support obligation changed. Instead, the Support Magistrate should have recalculated the father’s child support obligation in accordance with the Child Support Standards Act.
Pozza v. Pozza, 260 A.D.2d 360, 687 N.Y.S.2d 711 (2nd Dept. 1999): Former husband was not entitled to downward modification of his maintenance obligation where former husband failed to demonstrate that continued payment would result in extreme hardship.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.