Stern v. Warren George, Inc., 82 A.D.3d 873 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
Stern v. Warren George, Inc., 82 A.D.3d 873 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …child support payments may be waived prospectively, before the obligation to make such payments has accrued at p. 874 ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …the party claiming a waiver must come forward with evidence of a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known and otherwise enforceable right to child support ⚠ not in text
14 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hinck v. Hinck (nyappdiv, 2014-01-15)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hinck v. Hinck
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Rather, there must be proof that there was a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known and otherwise enforceable right (see id.). “ ‘[T]he party claiming a waiver must come forward with evidence of a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known and otherwise enforceable right to child support’ ” (Matter of Tafuro v Tafuro, 102 AD3d 877 , 878 [2013], quoting Stevens v Stevens, 82 AD3d 873, 873 [2011]; see Matter of Barrio v Montanez, 71 AD3d 1140, 1140 [2010]; Matter of O’Connor v Curcio, 281 AD2d 100, 105 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hinck v. Hinck
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Rather, there must be proof that there was a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known and otherwise enforceable right (see id.). “ ‘[T]he party claiming a waiver must come forward with evidence of a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known and otherwise enforceable right to child support’ ” (Matter of Tafuro v Tafuro, 102 AD3d 877 , 878 [2013], quoting Stevens v Stevens, 82 AD3d 873, 873 [2011]; see Matter of Barrio v Montanez, 71 AD3d 1140, 1140 [2010]; Matter of O’Connor v Curcio, 281 AD2d 100, 105 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tafuro v. Tafuro
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“Child support payments may be waived prospectively, before the obligation to make such payments has accrued” (Stevens v Stevens, 82 AD3d 873, 874 [2011]; see Matter of Savini v Burgaleta, 69 AD3d 734, 735 [2010]; Matter of O’Connor v Curcio, 281 AD2d 100, 105 [2001]). “[A] mere change in custody is insufficient to constitute a waiver of child support” (Matter of O’Connor v Curcio, 281 AD2d at 105 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tafuro v. Tafuro
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“Child support payments may be waived prospectively, before the obligation to make such payments has accrued” (Stevens v Stevens, 82 AD3d 873, 874 [2011]; see Matter of Savini v Burgaleta, 69 AD3d 734, 735 [2010]; Matter of O’Connor v Curcio, 281 AD2d 100, 105 [2001]). “[A] mere change in custody is insufficient to constitute a waiver of child support” (Matter of O’Connor v Curcio, 281 AD2d at 105 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mitchell Stern
v.
Warren George, Inc., and Lilly Construction Co., Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 8, 2011.
82 A.D.3d 873
Published

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the respondent’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 317 to vacate the judgment entered upon its failure to appear or answer (see CPLR 317; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 142-143 [1986]; Taieb v Hilton Hotels Corp., 60 NY2d 725, 728 [1983]; Reyes v DCH Mgt., Inc., 56 AD3d 644 [2008]; Franklin v 172 Aububon Corp., 32 AD3d 454 [2006]). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in extending the one-year limitation period set forth in CPLR 317 in light of the potentially meritorious defense asserted by the respondent, the short delay after the limitation period expired in moving to vacate the judgment, and the public policy of determining actions on the merits (see CPLR 2004; Girardo v 99-27 Realty, LLC, 62 AD3d 659, 660 [2009]; F & C Gen. Contrs. Corp. v Atlantic Mut. Mtge. Corp., 202 AD2d 629, 629-630 [1994]; Allen v Preston, 123 AD2d 303, 303-304 [1986]; Levine v Berlin, 46 AD2d 902, 903 [1974]). Mastro, J.E, Angiolillo, Balkin, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.