47 New York opinions name it 7 courts 1876–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
MATTER OF POWERS v. Powersgreen2 sentences2019At a support violation hearing, the petitioner has the initial burden of presenting prima facie evidence of nonpayment of child support ( see Matter of Powers v Powers , 86 NY2d 63, 69 ; Matter of Bianco v Bruce-Ross , 107 AD3d 886, 887 ; Matter of Paccione v Paccione , 57 AD3d 900, 902 ; Matter of Biancanello v Russano , 54 AD3d 853, 854 ). 2008At a support violation hearing, the petitioner has the initial burden of presenting prima facie evidence of nonpayment of child support (see Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63, 69 [1995]; Matter of Armstrong v Belrose, 9 AD3d 625, 626 [2004]). | 3 | 4 |
Finn v. Church for Art of LivIng, Inc.green2 sentences2014The father waived any objection to service of the prior motion by appearing in the proceeding and participating in the support hearing on the merits (see Finn v Church for the Art of Living, Inc., 90 AD3d 826, 827 [2011]; Matter of Roslyn B. v Alfred G., 222 AD2d 581 [1995]). 2014The father waived any objection to service of the prior motion by appearing in the proceeding and participating in the support hearing on the merits (see Finn v Church for the Art of Living, Inc., 90 AD3d 826, 827 [2011]; Matter of Roslyn B. v Alfred G., 222 AD2d 581 [1995]). | 2 | 2 |
Armstrong v. Belrosegreen2 sentences2008At a support violation hearing, the petitioner has the initial burden of presenting prima facie evidence of nonpayment of child support (see Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63, 69 [1995]; Matter of Armstrong v Belrose, 9 AD3d 625, 626 [2004]). 2006At a support violation hearing, the petitioner has the initial burden of presenting prima facie evidence of nonpayment of child support (see Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63, 69 [1995]; Matter of Armstrong v Belrose, 9 AD3d 625, 626 [2004]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Lawtongreen2 sentences2007Johnsville v Triumpho, 220 AD2d 847, 848 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 809 [1996]; see also People v Malone, 3 AD3d 795, 797 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 763 [2004]). 2005Johnsville v Triumpho, 220 AD2d 847, 848 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 809 [1996]; see also People v Malone, 3 AD3d 795, 797 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 763 [2004]). | 2 | 2 |
St. Johnsville v. Triumphogreen2 sentences2007Johnsville v Triumpho, 220 AD2d 847, 848 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 809 [1996]; see also People v Malone, 3 AD3d 795, 797 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 763 [2004]). 2005Johnsville v Triumpho, 220 AD2d 847, 848 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 809 [1996]; see also People v Malone, 3 AD3d 795, 797 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 763 [2004]). | 2 | 2 |
Bickwid v. Deutschgreen2 sentences2007As we previously indicated in the event that the companion case was reversed, because “the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the original support violation order, the order is not merely erroneous but void and respondent cannot be punished for failing to comply with that order” ( 24 AD3d 1129 , 1129 [2005], supra; see Matter of Bickwid v Deutsch, 229 AD2d 533, 534-535 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 802 [1996]; Matter of Village of St. 2005If the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the original support violation order, the order is not merely erroneous but void and respondent cannot be punished for failing to comply with that order ( see Matter of Bickwid v Deutsch, 229 AD2d 533, 534-535 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 802 [1996]; Matter of Village of St. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Malonegreen2 sentences2007Johnsville v Triumpho, 220 AD2d 847, 848 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 809 [1996]; see also People v Malone, 3 AD3d 795, 797 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 763 [2004]). 2005Johnsville v Triumpho, 220 AD2d 847, 848 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 809 [1996]; see also People v Malone, 3 AD3d 795, 797 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 763 [2004]). | 2 | 2 |
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. LeTenniergreen2 sentences2026Trust Co. v LeTennier , _____ AD3d at _____, 2026 NY Slip Op 00040, *5), and that involved the assertion of "material factual statements that are false" (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c][3]). 2026Trust Co. v LeTennier , _____ AD3d at _____, 2026 NY Slip Op 00040, *5 ), and that involved the assertion of "material factual statements that are false" (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c][3]). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 10866780green2 sentences2026In Matter of Julien , this Court held that by filing an appellate brief citing to a nonexistent case as the sole support for his claim of judicial bias, the pro se father in a child custody proceeding engaged in conduct that was "completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law" (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c][1]) and that involved the assertion of "material factual statements that are false" ( id. § 130-1.1[c][3]; see Matter of Julien v Arthur , ___ AD3d at ___, 2026 NY Slip Op 03308, *2 ). 2026Under the circumstances presented, including the father's pro se status, the fact that he cited only one nonexistent case, and that he readily acknowledged his misplaced reliance on GenAI once he was alerted to the issue without further reoccurrence, this Court deemed it appropriate to impose a monetary sanction in the sum of $250 ( see Matter of Julien v Arthur , ___ AD3d at ___, 2026 NY Slip Op 03308, *2 ). | 1 | 1 |
Gilbert v. Gilbertgreen1 sentence2017The husband’s voluntarily deferred income in the form of his 401 (k) contributions was properly included in his income (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5] [iii]; see also Gilbert v Gilbert, 32 AD3d 414, 416 [2d Dept 2006]). | 1 | 1 |
In re Jayquan J.green1 sentence2016The fact that he was incarcerated did not absolve him of his responsibility to provide financial support, nor did it establish as a matter of law that he did not have the means to provide financial support (see Matter of Jeremy ah G. [Keith J.], 125 AD3d 655, 657 [2015]; Matter of De’Von M.F.C. [Mustapha F.], 105 AD3d 738 , 738 [2013]; Matter of Jayquan J. [Clint J.], 77 AD3d 947, 948 [2010]; Matter of Sharissa G., 51 AD3d at 1020 ). | 1 | 1 |
Stanford v. Jobgreen1 sentence2016Under the circumstances of this case, by appearing in the proceeding and participating in the support hearing on the merits, the father waived his right to object to the ex parte reinstatement of the petition (see Matter of Stanford v Job, 113 AD3d 782, 783 [2014]; cf. S. Nicolia & Sons Realty Corp. v A.J.A. | 1 | 1 |
Casey v. Caseygreen1 sentence2016Concrete Ready Mix, Inc., 130 AD3d 1004 [2015]; Crystal Clear Dev., LLC v Devon Architects of N.Y., P.C., 127 AD3d 911, 914 [2015]; Casey v Casey, 39 AD3d 579, 579-580 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Jeremyah G. (Keith J.)green1 sentence2016The fact that he was incarcerated did not absolve him of his responsibility to provide financial support, nor did it establish as a matter of law that he did not have the means to provide financial support (see Matter of Jeremy ah G. [Keith J.], 125 AD3d 655, 657 [2015]; Matter of De’Von M.F.C. [Mustapha F.], 105 AD3d 738 , 738 [2013]; Matter of Jayquan J. [Clint J.], 77 AD3d 947, 948 [2010]; Matter of Sharissa G., 51 AD3d at 1020 ). | 1 | 1 |
Crystal Clear Development, LLC v. Devon Architects of New York, P.C.green1 sentence2016Concrete Ready Mix, Inc., 130 AD3d 1004 [2015]; Crystal Clear Dev., LLC v Devon Architects of N.Y., P.C., 127 AD3d 911, 914 [2015]; Casey v Casey, 39 AD3d 579, 579-580 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
Tequan R. v. Joyce McC.green1 sentence2014The record indicates that the two matters were consolidated and that the same attorney represented the father on both matters. *1150 There is no basis for reassigning this case to a different judge or court (cf. Matter of Tequan R., 43 AD3d 673, 679 [1st Dept 2007]). | 1 | 1 |
| Leon v. St. Vincent De Paul Residencegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Manocchio v. Manocchiogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Baker v. Rosegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Musarra v. Musarragreen | 1 | 1 |
| Moran v. Grillogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rube v. Tornheimgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Yarinsky v. Yarinskygreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re the Adoption of Madeline S.green | 1 | 1 |
| Watson v. Watsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Cablegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mtr. of Abrams (John Anonymous)green | 1 | 1 |
| Hayes v. Hayesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bucek v. Rogersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Steuben County Department of Social Services v. Jamesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. Shaw
green
2 sentences2014The father waived any objection to service of the prior motion by appearing in the proceeding and participating in the support hearing on the merits (see Finn v Church for the Art of Living, Inc., 90 AD3d 826, 827 [2011]; Matter of Roslyn B. v Alfred G., 222 AD2d 581 [1995]). 2014The father waived any objection to service of the prior motion by appearing in the proceeding and participating in the support hearing on the merits (see Finn v Church for the Art of Living, Inc., 90 AD3d 826, 827 [2011]; Matter of Roslyn B. v Alfred G., 222 AD2d 581 [1995]). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Winn v. Baker
green
2 sentences2005In Matter of Winn v Baker ( 2 AD3d 1169 [3d Dept 2003]), the petitioner was granted an order of child support against a respondent who was incarcerated at the time of the support hearing. 2005In Matter of Winn v Baker ( 2 AD3d 1169 [3d Dept 2003]), the petitioner was granted an order of child support against a respondent who was incarcerated at the time of the support hearing. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Martin v. . Funk
green
2 sentences1899Martin v. Funk, 75 N. Y. 134 ; Willis v. Smyth, 91 id. 297; Mabie v. Bailey, 95 id. 206; Beaver v. Beaver, 117 id. 421, and 137 id. 59; Markey v. Markey, 38 N. Y. 1898Martin v. Funk, 75 N. Y. 134 ; Willis v. Smyth, 91 id. 297; Mabie v. Bailey, 95 id. 206; Beaver v. Beaver, 117 id. 421, and 137 id. 59; Markey v. Markey, 38. | 2 | 1898–1899 |
Biancanello v. Russano
green
1 sentence2019At a support violation hearing, the petitioner has the initial burden of presenting prima facie evidence of nonpayment of child support ( see Matter of Powers v Powers , 86 NY2d 63, 69 ; Matter of Bianco v Bruce-Ross , 107 AD3d 886, 887 ; Matter of Paccione v Paccione , 57 AD3d 900, 902 ; Matter of Biancanello v Russano , 54 AD3d 853, 854 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Paccione v. Paccione
green
1 sentence2019At a support violation hearing, the petitioner has the initial burden of presenting prima facie evidence of nonpayment of child support ( see Matter of Powers v Powers , 86 NY2d 63, 69 ; Matter of Bianco v Bruce-Ross , 107 AD3d 886, 887 ; Matter of Paccione v Paccione , 57 AD3d 900, 902 ; Matter of Biancanello v Russano , 54 AD3d 853, 854 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Baranek v. Baranek
green
1 sentence2019At a support violation hearing, the petitioner has the initial burden of presenting prima facie evidence of nonpayment of child support ( see Matter of Powers v Powers , 86 NY2d 63, 69 ; Matter of Bianco v Bruce-Ross , 107 AD3d 886, 887 ; Matter of Paccione v Paccione , 57 AD3d 900, 902 ; Matter of Biancanello v Russano , 54 AD3d 853, 854 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Aimee E.-H. v. Alexander H.
neutral
1 sentence2019Here, the father's concession of failure to pay child support constituted prima facie evidence of a violation ( see Matter of Aimee E.-H. v Alexander H. , 118 AD3d 458, 459 ; Matter of Reinninger v Campbell , 47 AD3d 635, 635 ; Matter of Jarrett v Mosslih , 34 AD3d 808, 809 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Jarrett v. Mosslih
green
1 sentence2019Here, the father's concession of failure to pay child support constituted prima facie evidence of a violation ( see Matter of Aimee E.-H. v Alexander H. , 118 AD3d 458, 459 ; Matter of Reinninger v Campbell , 47 AD3d 635, 635 ; Matter of Jarrett v Mosslih , 34 AD3d 808, 809 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Reinninger v. Campbell
green
1 sentence2019Here, the father's concession of failure to pay child support constituted prima facie evidence of a violation ( see Matter of Aimee E.-H. v Alexander H. , 118 AD3d 458, 459 ; Matter of Reinninger v Campbell , 47 AD3d 635, 635 ; Matter of Jarrett v Mosslih , 34 AD3d 808, 809 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Matter of People v. Juarez
green
1 sentence2018That the People appealed from the Appellate Division order granting the motions to quash without arguing the dispositive challenge of the nonappealability of that order further confirms that the law on direct appeals of motions to quash has long been settled in this state. [FN2] [*8]{**31 NY3d at 1196}As the Court explained in Matter of Cunningham v Nadjari over 40 years ago, "[O]n a basis of stare decisis these precedents represent a formidable line of authority, however asymmetrical may appear to be the support for the rule they express and apply. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In re De'Von M.F.C.
green
1 sentence2016The fact that he was incarcerated did not absolve him of his responsibility to provide financial support, nor did it establish as a matter of law that he did not have the means to provide financial support (see Matter of Jeremy ah G. [Keith J.], 125 AD3d 655, 657 [2015]; Matter of De’Von M.F.C. [Mustapha F.], 105 AD3d 738 , 738 [2013]; Matter of Jayquan J. [Clint J.], 77 AD3d 947, 948 [2010]; Matter of Sharissa G., 51 AD3d at 1020 ). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In re Sharissa G.
green
1 sentence2016The fact that he was incarcerated did not absolve him of his responsibility to provide financial support, nor did it establish as a matter of law that he did not have the means to provide financial support (see Matter of Jeremy ah G. [Keith J.], 125 AD3d 655, 657 [2015]; Matter of De’Von M.F.C. [Mustapha F.], 105 AD3d 738 , 738 [2013]; Matter of Jayquan J. [Clint J.], 77 AD3d 947, 948 [2010]; Matter of Sharissa G., 51 AD3d at 1020 ). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
S. Nicolia & Sons Realty Corp. v. A.J.A. Concrete Ready Mix, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2016Concrete Ready Mix, Inc., 130 AD3d 1004 [2015]; Crystal Clear Dev., LLC v Devon Architects of N.Y., P.C., 127 AD3d 911, 914 [2015]; Casey v Casey, 39 AD3d 579, 579-580 [2007]). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In re Peter H. T.
green
1 sentence2016The father failed to establish that he met the threshold support requirement of making payments toward the support of the subject children of a fair and reasonable sum, according to his means (see Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d] [i]; Matter of Andrew Peter H.T., 64 NY2d at 1091 ). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Winters v. Winters neutral | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Abramo v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Matter of Willard L. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| In re Christopher UU. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| In re Michael P. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Sutton v. Mundy green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Sutton v. Mundy neutral | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Eck v. County of Delaware green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Sutton v. Mundy neutral | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| In re Shauna B. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Betro v. Carbone green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Pitts v. City of Buffalo green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Cunningham v. Nadjari green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| People v. Monk green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| People v. Sanchez neutral | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Peterson v. Stafford green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. Castillo green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Eisenstadt v. Baird green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Lurie v. California green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Dobkin v. Chapman green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| People v. Onofre green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| People v. Liberta green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Soto v. Montanez green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. McIntosh neutral | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Bigelow green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| People v. Girolamo green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.